Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


/ 


https://archive.org/details/definitionofinteOOstoc_O 


ri, 

PSYCHOLOGICAL  REVIEW  PUBLICATIONS 


Wholt  No.  137 
1921 


Psychological  Monographs 


EDITED  BY 

JAMES  ROWLAND  ANGELL,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

HOWARD  C.  WARREN,  Princeton  University  ( Review ) 

JOHN  B.  WATSON,  New  York  (/.  of  Exp.  Psychol.) 

SHEPHERD  I.  FRANZ,  Govt.  Hosp.  for  Insane  ( Bulletin )  and 

MADISON  BENTLEY,  University  of  Illinois  {Index) 


The  Definition  of  Intelligence  in  Re¬ 
lation  to  Modern  Methods  of 
Mental  Measurement 


/ 


BY 


J.  LEROY  STOCKTON,  Ph.D. 


Vice  President  and  Head  of  the  Education  Department,  State 


Teachers’  College,  Santa  Barbara,  California 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  REVIEW  COMPANY 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 
and  LANCASTER,  PA. 

Aoents:  G.  E.  STECHERT  &  CO.,  London  (2  Star  Yard,  Carey  St.,  W.  C.) 

Paris  (16  rue  de  Conde) 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 


Introduction  .  i 

I.  Necessity  for  establishing  a  clear  psychological  setting 
for  the  problem  of  intelligence .  I 

II.  Recognition  of  types  of  research .  2 

III.  Relation  of  hypothesis  to  research .  3 

IV.  The  objectives  of  the  thesis  as  guided  by  the  consid¬ 
erations  mentioned  above .  4 

Chapter  I.  Factors  in  psychological  setting  for  the  problem 

of  intelligence .  5 

I.  Psychological  views  of  the  existence  and  function  of 
soul,  consciousness,  mind,  mental  states .  5 

II.  The  modern  theory  of  a  unitary  mind .  10 

Chapter  II.  Current  views  of  adaptation  and  mind  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  intelligence .  13 

I.  The  confusion  which  these  terms  present .  13 

II.  Types  of  adaptation  in  relation  to  mind  and  intelli¬ 
gence  .  14 

A.  Adaptation  in  the  inorganic  world .  14 

B.  Adaptation  in  the  organic  world .  15 

1.  Primary  mechanical  types .  15 

a.  Tropic  adaptation .  15 

b.  Reflex  and  instinctive  adaptation .  15 

c.  Modified  instinctive  adaptation .  17 

d.  Associative  adaptation .  17 

•  •  • 
m 


IV 


CONTENTS 


2.  Purposive  type .  18 

a.  Intentional  adaptation  .  18 

3.  Secondary  mechanical  type .  21 

a.  Reproductive  (habitual)  adaptation...  21 

III.  The  definition  of  intelligence .  22 

IV.  Summary  of  Chapter  I .  22 

Chapter  III.  Types  of  studies  in  the  quantitative  study  of 

intelligence  .  24 

I.  Measures,  not  of  intelligence,  but  of  factors  found  to 
to  be  correlated  with  intelligence .  24 

A.  Correlation  of  physical  traits  with  intelligence  24 

B.  Correlation  of  mental  traits  with  intelligence.  .  25 

II.  Real  measures  of  intelligence .  26 

A.  Measures  of  mechanically  controlled  intelligence  26 

1.  Original  types  (unlearned) .  26 

2.  Learned  types  .  27 

B.  Measures  of  intentionally  controlled  intelligence  27 

C.  Measures  of  reproductive  intelligence .  28 

Chapter  IV.  The  fundamental  nature  of  intentional  adapta¬ 
tion  .  30 

I.  The  “common  factor”  in  intelligence .  30 

II.  Existing  evidences  that  purposive  intelligence  is  condi¬ 
tioned  by  levels  based  upon  an  analysis  of  mind .  34 

1.  The  generally  accepted  idea  that  the  abstract 

is  “harder”  than  the  concrete .  34 

2.  The  popular,  but  contradictory,  conception 
that  pupils  considered  dull  because  they  fail 
in  abstract  subjects,  prove  their  intelligence 

by  success  in  concrete  subjects .  34 

3.  Courses  of  study  in  institutions  for  the 

feebleminded  .  35 

4.  Clinical  descriptions  of  feebleminded  per¬ 
sons  .  35 

5.  Evidence  drawn  from  the  construction  and 
the  application  of  certain  intelligence  tests  37 


CONTENTS 


v 


a.  Illustrations  from  the  Binet  tests .  37 

b.  Illustrations  from  the  De  Sanctis  tests  38 

c.  Illustrations  from  material  used  by  Pint- 

ner  and  Patterson  in  “A  Scale  of  Per¬ 
formance  Tests”  .  39 

d.  Illustration  from  performance  test  ma¬ 
terial  developed  by  Healy .  51 

e.  Illustrations  from  studies  directed 

toward  the  determination  of  the  type  of 
mental  function  possessed  by  the  feeble¬ 
minded  .  52 

f.  Illustration  from  success  and  failure  in 

abstract  and  concrete  subjects  of  in¬ 
struction  .  54 

Chapter  V.  The  fundamental  nature  of  intentional  adapta¬ 
tion,  continued  .  58 

I.  Original  quantitative  studies .  58 

1.  In  upper  school  grades .  58 

2.  In  lower  school  grades .  83 

II.  Conclusions .  83 

Chapter  VI.  Modern  methods  of  mental  measurement .  93 

I.  The  evolution  of  modern  methods .  93 

1.  A  summation  of  modern  tendencies .  93 

2.  Some  general  side  lights  on  the  development 

of  the  modern  view .  98 

3.  Certain  minor  and  major  views  and  studies 

in  confirmation  of  the  existence  of  a  com¬ 
mon  factor  in  intelligence .  99 

II.  Possible  results  of  the  theory  upon  modern  methods 

of  mental  measurement . 102 

1.  Emphasis  upon  the  value  of  the  language 

test  . 103 

2.  Tendency  to  the  development  of  more  diag¬ 
nostic  scales  of  intelligence  based  upon  the 


VI 


CONTENTS 


separate  scaling  of  qualitative  differences  in 

the  common  factor . 103 

3.  Increased  tendency  to  speculate  upon  the 
problem  as  to  whether  the  development  of 
intelligence  ceases  soon  after  adolescence.  .105 

III.  Summary . 107 

Typical  General  References . 109 


THE  DEFINITION  OF  INTELLIGENCE  IN  RELATION 
TO  MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL 
MEASUREMENT. 


INTRODUCTION 

I.  Necessity  for  Establishing  a  Clear  Psychological 
Setting  for  the  Problem  of  Intelligence. 

Probably  all  will  agree  that  the  problem  of  intelligence  belongs 
in  psychology.  Naturally,  therefore,  one  would  at  first  thought 
feel  justified  in  discussing  intelligence  in  terms  of  mind,  con¬ 
sciousness,  and  other  popularly  used  psychological  terms.  There 
have  been  times  in  the  history  of  psychology  when  this  could  have 
been  done  without  raising  any  question;  but  even  minor  excur¬ 
sions  into  modern  psychology  show  that  the  leaders  in  that  field 
are  fundamentally  divided  by  different  concepts  and  terminolo¬ 
gies.  They  do  not  agree  as  to  what  mind  is.  They  do  not  even 
agree  as  to  whether  psychology  should  assume  the  existence  of 
mind,  or,  if  it  exists,  whether  psychology  should  make  any  at¬ 
tempt  to  determine  its  nature. 

Hence  the  student  of  intelligence  is  forced  to  review  current 
psychological  theories  and  to  decide  as  to  the  attitude  which  he, 
himself,  shall  take.  Otherwise  any  conclusions  to  which  he  may 
come,  and  any  arguments  which  he  may  base  upon  the  conclu¬ 
sions,  are  likely  to  prove  abortive,  due  to  a  mere  misunder¬ 
standing  of  terms. 

The  situation  is  similar  to  that  raised  by  the  ancient  dispute 
as  to  whether  there  would  be  any  sound  at  Niagara  if  there  were 
no  ear  there  to  hear  it.  The  argument  must  result  in  endless  de¬ 
bate  unless  one  stops  to  ask  whether  sound  is  to  be  defined  in 


2 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


terms  of  physics  or  in  terms  of  psychology.  This  illustration 
merely  points  the  observation  that  since  the  intelligence  problem  is 
at  bottom  a  psychological  problem,  any  attempt  to  deal  with  it 
constructively  must  use  psychological  terms  with  carefully  con¬ 
sidered  and  defined  meanings.  Thus  the  later  argument  can  be 
saved  from  becoming  hopelessly  at  cross  purposes. 

Two  sources  of  confusion  in  modern  psychological  terminol¬ 
ogy  are  (i)  the  term  mind  or  consciousness,  and  (2)  faculties, 
or  functions,  of  mind.  It  is  desirable  that  the  points  of  view 
concerning  these  be  carefully  discriminated,  and  definite  ones 
selected.  This  is  not  to  be  done  with  the  idea  of  settling  the 
matter  once  for  all;  but  rather  with  the  idea  that  although  the 
reader  may  disagree  with  the  view  chosen,  he  can  at  least  follow 
the  argument  of  this  presentation  without  confusion. 

An  attempt  will  therefore  be  made  in  Chapter  I  to  analyze 
the  current  views  of  mind  and  of  its  functions,  and  later  to  locate 
the  intelligence  problem  in  relation  to  these  views. 

II.  Recognition  of  Types  of  Research. 

There  was  a  time  when  what  was  known  as  psychological  re¬ 
search  was  mainly  speculation.  One  could  sit  down  in  seclusion, 
evolve  theories,  and  record  them  as  his  contribution.  The  the¬ 
ories  did  not  need  to  have  much  relation  to  evidence;  and  they 
were  in  fact  not  often  anchored  to  anything  in  particular.  They 
systematized  themselves  with  reference  to  themselves,  and  re¬ 
mained  essentially  a  closed  circle.  Then  came  the  era  of  scien¬ 
tific  experiment,  and  with  it  the  demand  that  research  cease  to 
be  speculative  and  become  quantitative.  It  must  observe,  record, 
and  systematize  facts  which  had  not  up  to  that  time  been  so 
handled  by  anyone  else.  It  must  make  a  genuine  quantitative 
contribution  to  human  knowledge.  The  demand  for  this  quan¬ 
titative  type  of  research  did  not  carry  with  it  an  absolute  ban 
upon  philosophical  theorizing ;  but  it  did  insist  that  theories  must 
accord  with  facts,  in  so  far  as  the  pertinent  facts  were  known; 
and  that  new  quantitative  researches  should  always  be  engaged 
in  turning  up  additional  facts,  with  which  facts  the  theories  must 
be  kept  in  line.  The  real  research  lay  in  the  development  of  the 
new  facts. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


3 


Such  is  now  the  prevailing  view.  But  it  may  be  pointed  out 
that  after  such  research  has  proceeded  to  a  certain  point,  its  own 
success  develops  the  necessity  for  another  type.  To  make  this 
clear  one  has  only  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  as  experi¬ 
ment  after  experiment  piles  up  endless  facts  in  a  given  field  cer¬ 
tain  complications  inevitably  arise.  This  is  particularly  the  case 
in  the  rather  intangible  field  of  the  social  sciences.  The  results  of 
some  experiments  confirm  each  other  in  whole  or  in  part;  some 
are  mutually  contradictory ;  while  some  are  difficult  to  bring  into 
any  kind  of  relation  with  others. 

When  the  mass  of  the  material  on  a  given  problem  has  grown 
to  large  proportions,  and  still  the  solution  seems  as  far  away  as 
ever,  it  is  time  to  take  account  of  stock.  It  is  time  to  attempt  to 
find  in  the  tangle  a  general  trend  which  may  point  the  way  to  a 
more  profitable  line  of  attack.  That  is,  research  is  needed  which 
is  a  search  for  organization  within  the  products  of  other  re¬ 
searches.  This  type  of  supplementary  research  requires  that  a 
rather  exhaustive  study  of  the  field  be  made;  that  efforts  of  dif¬ 
ferent  investigators  be  brought  into  relation  to  each  other  and 
to  principles  involved;  that  irrelevant  details  be  excluded  and 
relevant  ones  emphasized;  and  that  the  whole  be  brought  to  a 
focus. 


III.  The  Relation  of  Hypothesis  to  Research. 

The  research  for  organization  among  the  products  of  unrelated 
researches  furnishes  the  basis  upon  which  extensions  may  be  at¬ 
tempted.  Such  a  study  of  conditions  makes  it  possible  to  for¬ 
mulate  a  guess  as  to  certain  other  things  which  are  probably  true, 
but  which  have  not  yet  been  adequately  proved.  This  guess, 
controlled  by  a  consideration  of  the  investigations  which  have 
preceded,  is  an  hypothesis.  Its  significance  is,  or  should  be,  de¬ 
termined  by  the  significance  of  the  previous  work,  and  by  the 
skill  with  which  such  work  has  been  probed  and  interpreted. 
To  continue  quantitative  work  indefinitely  without  subjecting  it 
occasionally  to  such  clearing-house  methods  as  result  in  a  clari¬ 
fied  and  consistent  hypothesis  is,  to  say  the  least,  wasteful.  But 


4 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


when  the  revised  hypothesis  has  been  arrived  at,  there  then  exists 
a  logical  demand  for  new  quantitative  work  which  shall  put  it 
to  the  severest  test. 

IV.  The  Objectives  of  this  Thesis  as  Guided  by  the 
Considerations  Mentioned  Above. 

A.  To  locate  more  definitely  the  problem  of  intelligence  in  re¬ 

lation  to  fundamental  points  of  view  in  psychology. 

B.  To  use  clearing-house  methods  of  research  upon  the  present 

situation  with  regard  to  intelligence  in  an  attempt  (a)  to 
establish  a  definition  of  intelligence,  (b)  to  discriminate 
types  of  intelligence,  and  (c)  to  discriminate  a  pivotal 
type. 

C.  To  further  clarify  the  situation  by  relating  existing  quantita¬ 

tive  studies  to  the  types  of  intelligence. 

D.  To  develop  an  hypothesis  concerning  the  fundamental  na¬ 

ture  of  the  pivotal  type  of  intelligence;  and  to  test  this 
hypothesis  by  quantitative  research. 

E.  To  apply  the  conclusions  to  a  critical  survey  of  modern 

methods  of  mental  measurement. 


CHAPTER  I 


Factors  in  a  Psychological  Setting  for  the 
Problem  of  Intelligence. 

I.  Psychological  views  of  the  existence  and  function  of  sold , 

consciousness ,  mind,  mental  states. 

The  4 'mind  and  body”  controversy  has  been  a  lengthy  one,  and 
it  is  not  yet  ended.  Early  psychology  was  philosophical,  meta¬ 
physical.  It  was  a  speculative  study  of  a  consciousness  called 
the  soul,  whose  existence  no  one  questioned.  Along  with  this 
metaphysical  psychology,  there  naturally  appeared  an  empirical 
psychology,  based  upon  attempts  to  describe  psychic  phenomena 
through  the  aid  of  introspection.  Metaphysical  and  empirical 
psychology  were  supplements  of  each  other  in  that  empirical 
psychology  was  largely  guided  by  metaphysical  views;  and  meta¬ 
physical  pschology,  on  its  part,  continually  used  empirical  ma¬ 
terials.  There  arose  a  natural  dualism,  a  contrast  between  soul 
(mind)  and  body  (matter).  Attempts  to  escape  this  dualism 
led,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  contention  that  matter  was  only  an¬ 
other  manifestation  of  spirit;  or  on  the  other  hand  to  the  con¬ 
tention  that  what  was  apparently  spirit  was  only  another  mani¬ 
festation  of  matter.  Thus  there  came  about  a  division  of 
psychological  thinkers  into  spiritualistic  monists,  and  material¬ 
istic  monists. 

A  hot-bed  of  discussion  of  these  different  points  of  view  is 
found  in  the  work  of  Huxley,  Tyndall,  Clifford,  Romanes,  etc. 
The  main  reason  for  the  break  between  the  old  and  new  views  lay 
in  the  growing  scientific  spirit,  and  in  the  conception  of  scientific 
law  characteristic  of  that  spirit.  The  belief  that  the  world  pro¬ 
cesses  rest  upon  the  law  of  cause  and  effect,  coupled  with  the 
belief  in  the  conservation  of  energy,  made  it  seem  impossible 
that  any  world  of  "mind”  could  "break  in”  upon  a  world  of 
matter  "locked  up  in  mechanical  causation”,  and  change  the 


6 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


cause  and  effect  series.  Such  a  breaking  in  would  require  the 
addition  of  some  energy  to  that  already  existing  in  the  world  of 
matter,  and  so  would  controvert  the  law  of  conservation  of 
energy.  As  philosophers  the  scientists  might  hold  speculative 
views  of  such  a  possibility,  but  as  scientists  they  could  see  no  other 
answer  to  the  dilemma  than  monism,  either  spiritualistic  or 
materialistic.  Moreover,  with  science  avowedly  dedicated  to  the 
study  of  facts  which  could  be  verified  in  the  world  of  things,  it 
is  clear  how  the  drift  was  toward  materialistic  monism  and  the 
elimination  of  the  “soul”  from  scientific  psychology. 

There  continued,  however,  to  be  psychologists  who  were  dual¬ 
ists,  who  discussed  mind  or  consciousness,  and  who  meant  by  it 
something  the  same  as  was  meant  by  the  metaphysical  psycholo¬ 
gist’s  concept  of  the  soul.  They  continued  at  least  to  conceive 
of  a  world  of  mind  and  a  world  of,  matter;  and  in  spite  of  the 
scientific  difficulties  involved,  they  believed  that  the  former  did 
have  something  to  do  with  certain  changes  which  took  place  in 
the  latter.  They  were  forced  to  this  view  by  their  observation 
of  the  organism  as  an  “adaptation  system”.  They  saw  this  or¬ 
ganism  changing  its  behavior  with  reference  to  its  environment. 
That  is,  they  saw  that  the  mechanical  systems  of  prearranged  in¬ 
stinctive  response  did  not  always  run  to  their  apparently  inevit¬ 
able  conclusion.  Behavior  did  vary  to  suit  circumstances.  Some 
of  this  variation,  or  adaptation,  could  be  explained  mechanically 
by  the  conflict  of  mechanical  systems  or  otherwise;  but  some  of 
it  could  not.  The  psychologist,  judging  certain  other  things  by 
his  experience  with  himself,  believed  that  adaptation  sometimes 
came  about  through  an  effective  mental  agent  acting  as  a  real 
power  of  choice  between  possible  systems  of  action.  Thus  in  his 
judgment  the  systems  did  not  always  run  freely  to  their  mechani¬ 
cal  conclusions.  He  conceived  of  a  mind  or  consciousness  whose 
specific  function  was  to  interfere  in  those  situations  which  de¬ 
mand  behavior  for  which  mechanical  systems  are  inadequate. 

But  it  was  necessary  to  put  forth  a  theory  as  to  how  this  re¬ 
lationship  between  the  world  of  mind  and  the  world  of  matter 
was  possible.  There  could  be  but  two  theories.  Either  there 
was  direct  interaction  between  the  two  worlds,  or  there  was  par- 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


7 


allel  action  between  them.  Upon  the  theory  of  interaction  the 
immaterial  mental  agent  must  leap  the  gap  between  it  and  the 
material  world,  and  exert  itself  directly.  This  theory  has  not 
been  very  popular  among  the  scientists,  because  it  runs  directly 
against  the  scientific  difficulties  already  mentioned. 

Upon  the  theory  of  parallel  action,  however,  the  question  was 
in  a  way  pigeon-holed.  It  was  admitted  that  the  asserted  gap 
between  the  material  and  the  immaterial  world  does  exist;  that 
the  human  mind  can  not  conceive  of  the  immaterial  as  acting 
upon  the  material ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  gap  can  not  be  con¬ 
ceived  as  bridged.  But  it  was  asserted  that  one  could  conceive  of 
happenings  in  the  immaterial  world  corresponding  to,  or  parallel 
with,  happenings  in  the  material  world;  and  that  it  was  not  at 
all  necessary  for  the  psychologist  to  explain  how  this  was  pos¬ 
sible.  It  was  only  necessary  to  postulate  that  when  something 
happened  in  one  world,  it  was  paralleled  by  something  in  the  other 
world.  It  was  not  necessary  to  conceive  that  one  happened  be¬ 
cause  of  the  other.  The  claim  was  merely  that  when  there  was 
a  happening  in  one  world,  there  was  a  parallel  happening  in  the 
other. 

But  even  this  statement  of  the  case  needed  to  be,  and  was 
qualified.  Not  every  happening  in  the  material  world  as  repre¬ 
sented  by  the  nervous  system,  crowned  by  the  brain,  is  accom¬ 
panied  (paralleled)  by  consciousness — by  a  happening  in  the 
mind.  The  stimulation  must  reach  a  certain  portion  of  the  ner¬ 
vous  system — the  cortex  of  the  brain,  and  there  must  be  a  cer¬ 
tain  intensity  of  neural  action  in  this  cortex  before  the  limen  is 
passed  and  the  mental  life  involved.  But  given  this  sufficient  in¬ 
tensity  of  neural  activity  in  the  cortex,  (in  the  material  world), 
then  the  theory  holds  that  there  is  parallel  activity  in  the  mind 
(the  immaterial  world). 

But  what  about  the  power  of  the  mind  to  break  in  upon,  and 
to  modify,  the  happenings  in  the  material  world  of  neural  activ¬ 
ity?  What  about  the  ability  of  the  mind  to  execute  its  purposes? 
Parallelism  is  still  a  sufficient  answer.  One  does  not  need  to 
think  of  the  change  as  caused  by  the  mind.  He  only  needs  to 
think  of  the  change  as  accompanying  the  given  mental  state. 


8 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


The  happenings  in  one  world  are  conceived  as  so  “set”  or  “tuned” 
with  relation  to  the  other  world,  that  variation  in  one  is  accom¬ 
panied  by  variation  in  the  other.  It  may  even  be  that  one  is  a 
mathematical  function  of  the  other;  but  even  in  that  case  the 
concept  is  one  of  mere  concomitant,  not  causal,  variation.  If  one 
uses  the  language  of  interaction,  and  speaks  of  the  mind  breaking 
in,  it  is  only  because  such  language  is  more  direct  and  saves  the 
circumlocution  which  would  otherwise  be  necessary. 

In  modern  psychology,  the  so-called  structuralists  accept  the 
parallelistic  hypothesis,  and  so  conceive  the  study  of  psychology 
in  terms  of  the  action  of  a  nervous  system  paralleled  under  certain 
conditions  by  mind.  They  regard  the  organism  as  an  adaptation 
system,  and  believe  that  mental  changes  accompany  neural 
changes  in  the  establishment  of  new  adaptations  for  which  the 
old  mechanical  systems  are  inadequate.  They  do  not,  however, 
make  any  attempt  to  tell  how  this  occurs.  They  leave  this  ques¬ 
tion  to  philosophy,  while  they  themselves  study  the  nervous  sys¬ 
tem  in  unexplained  parallel  relation  to  mind,  and  also  try  to  ar¬ 
rive  at  the  structure  of  mind  through  the  aid  of  introspection 
checked  up  by  the  products  of  performance  measured  by  labora¬ 
tory  instruments  of  precision. 

This  structural  psychology  was  on  its  experimental  side  the 
child  of  the  nineteenth  century  development  of  scientific  physi¬ 
ology.  But  this  trend  toward  scientific  physiology  and  biology 
has  also  been  responsible  for  the  development  of  two  other  psy¬ 
chological  points  of  view.  The  first  of  these  is  the  functionalist 
view,  and  the  second  is  the  behaviorist  view.  Both  regard  the 
organism  as  an  adaptation  system ;  both  tend  to  speak  in  biological 
or  neurological  terms.  Their  work  puts  a  strong  emphasis  upon 
the  nervous  system,  upon  stimulus,  and  response,  neurons  and 
neuron  patterns  made  by  prenatal  bonds  between  neurons,  or  by 
new  bonds  resulting  from  experience.  Over  these  neuron  pat¬ 
terns  plays  the  neural  force  in  response  to  stimuli,  and  behavior 
is  the  result. 

The  functionalist  agrees  with  the  structuralist  in  admitting  the 
existence  of  mind,  and  in  making  free  use  of  the  terms  mind, 
mental  state,  mental  processes,  etc. ;  but  his  view  is  perhaps  less 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


9 


dualistic  and  more  materialistic  in  that  he  looks  upon  mind  as 
“the  functioning  of  the  brain’5.  There  is  for  him  a  mental  cor¬ 
relate  of  the  physical  brain  process,  but  that  correlate  is  the  mere 
process  by  means  of  which  the  brain  performs  its  function.  This 
process,  being  something  different  from  the  brain  itself,  gives 
mind  a  place,  and  relates  the  functionalist  to  the  structuralist. 
But  instead  of  being  especially  interested  in  the  structure  of  mind, 
the  functionalist  is  especially  interested  in  the  achievements  of 
mind.  He  is  interested  in  development,  in  organic  evolution,  in 
how  the  process  has  come  to  be  what  it  is,  and  in  what  is  its 
teleological  (purposive)  significance.  So  the  structuralist  and  the 
functionalist  are  not  necessarily  different  persons.  Structuralism 
and  functionalism  are  different  points  of  view,  focused  upon  dif¬ 
ferent  aspects  of  the  total  psychological  field.  They  may  belong 
at  different  times  to  the  same  person. 

The  behaviorist  frankly  puts  mind  out  of  consideration.  He 
says  that  no  one  has  proved  or  can  prove  that  there  is  or  is  not  a 
mind.  Moreover,  he  says  that  for  the  study  of  psychology  it 
doesn’t  make  any  difference.  What  is  important  in  his  opinion 
is  behavior,  and  the  possibility  of  the  prediction  of  behavior, 
through  the  study  of  the  nervous  system,  its  original  neuron 
patterns,  and  the  formation  of  new  patterns  through  experience. 
Hence  he  voluntarily  relinquishes  the  study  of  mind  in  favor  of 
the  study  of  behavior  explained  by  a  nervous  system  operating 
by  mechanical,  biological  law.  Behavior  counts;  it  is  tangible.  It 
can  be  objectively  measured,  is  entirely  free  from  metaphysical 
speculation,  and  is  therefore  the  real  subject  matter  for  science. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  there  is  a  place  for  this  view  of  the 
behaviorist.  There  are  certain  psychological  problems  which 
can  be  attacked  only  on  the  basis  of  objective  data,  and  this  fact 
gives  the  behaviorist  his  field.  But  again  it  would  seem  that  it  is 
a  part,  only,  of  the  total  field,  cut  off  by  the  limitations  of  a  cer¬ 
tain  view  which  may  be  taken  by  any  psychologist  at  any  time. 
To  regard  it  is  an  exclusive  and  all-embracing  view,  and  so  to 
give  up  the  conception  of  mind  as  a  directive  agent,  would  seem 
to  make  the  organism  a  mere  automaton  at  the  mercy  of  external 
influences.  Certain  psychologists  are  not  willing  to  do  this. 


10 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


They  feel  that  the  automaton  theory  is  outworn,  and  that  man,  at 
least  to  a  certain  extent,  can  exercise  a  power  of  initiative  and 
thus  influence  his  destiny  through  purposeful  choice  between  re¬ 
sponses.  They  feel  that  the  prediction  of  behavior  must  be  very 
incomplete  without  a  study  of  this  mind  which  has  the  power 
to  vary  behavior  through  deliberate  choice.  Thus  they  feel  that 
to  make  psychology  purely  a  study  of  organic  behavior  without 
raising  the  question  of  a  directing  mind  is  almost  or  quite  to  make 
it  a  study  of  biology  or  neurology.  It  is  to  them,  in  a  sense, 
psychology  with  the  psychology  left  out. 

Thus  it  is  clear  that  if  one  is  to  talk  about  intelligence  as  a 
psychological  phenomenon,  he  must  choose  a  definite  point  of 
view,  especially  with  regard  to  the  mooted  mind  or  conscious¬ 
ness.  This  point  of  view,  it  goes  without  saying,  need  not  be 
exclusively  structural,  functional,  or  behavioristic. 

The  view  here  taken  will  agree  with  the  tendency  of  modern 
psychologists  of  all  schools  to  drop  the  use  of  the  word  conscious¬ 
ness  in  favor  of  the  word  mind,  or  of  the  expression  mental 
state,  since  consciousness  sometimes  carries  with  it  a  connotation 
more  philosophical  than  scientific.  There  will,  however,  be  dis¬ 
agreement  with  some  psychologists  in  that  ( i )  it  will  be  assumed 
that  mind  does  exist  coextensive  with  a  certain  intensity  of  neural 
activity  in  the  cortex,  and  (2)  in  that  the  parallelistic  hypothesis 
will  be  accepted,  but  for  convenience  the  language  of  interaction 
will  be  used.  The  specific  function  of  mind  will  therefore  be 
conceived  as  that  of  breaking  in  upon  the  mechanical  causation  of 
mechanical  systems  of  response,  thus  making  itself  felt  in 
changed  behavior. 

II.  The  modern  theory  of  a  unitary  mind. 

The  assumption  that  mind  exists,  and  at  times  exercises  a  di¬ 
rective  power  over  behavior,  has  been  accepted.  Another  step 
may  be  taken  through  the  medium  of  a  discussion  of  mental 
“faculties”.  The  older  metaphysical  psychology,  in  its  attempt 
to  analyze  the  soul,  naturally  discriminated  such  faculties  (func¬ 
tions)  as  sensation,  perception,  memory,  imagination,  etc.  Even 
the  most  modern  parallelistic  hypothesis  must  be  carefully  safe- 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


ii 


guarded  or  it  falls  into  the  same  trap.  The  very  attempt  to  dif¬ 
ferentiate  between  brain  and  mind  is  conducive  to  the  difficulty. 
One  thinks  of  neural  activity  in  the  cortex,  and  of  a  gradually 
increasing  intensity  in  this  activity.  Perhaps  it  is  a  neural  activ¬ 
ity  stimulated  by  light.  When  the  intensity  passes  a  certain  limit 
the  brain  activity  is  paralleled  by  the  simplest  possible  mental 
activity.  This  simplest  possible  mental  state  is  given  the  name 
sensation.  It  becomes  immediately  natural  to  say  that  the  mind 
has  a  faculty  of  registering  sensations,  and  to  discuss  sensation 
as  a  mental  faculty. 

As  more  and  more  stimuli  bent  upon  the  end  organs,  raise  the 
intensity  of  neural  activity  in  the  brain,  and  are  paralleled  by 
more  and  more  sensations,  immediate  sensations  merge  with  the 
associated  past  sensations  into  percepts.  This  gives  the  mind  a 
faculty  of  perception.  Then  the  power  to  bring  back  to  mind  the 
image  of  the  thing  itself  is  focused  upon.  Recognized  images 
are  responsible  for  a  faculty  of  memory ;  vivified  and  reconstruct¬ 
ed  images,  for  a  faculty  of  imagination ;  images  used  as  symbols 
of  meaning,  for  a  faculty  of  ideation;  and  the  relating  of  these 
images,  for  a  faculty  of  thinking. 

The  difficulty  with  this  scheme  does  not  lie  so  much  in  the  con¬ 
ception  of  the  “faculties”  as  it  does  in  the  emphasis  upon  the  in¬ 
dependence  of  the  faculties  in  action,  and  the  correlated  emphasis 
upon  their  ability  to  take  training.  The  view  was  naturally 
evolved  that  through  the  training  of  any  particular  faculty  a 
particular  kind  of  power  could  be  stored  up  and  remain  ready  to 
be  drawn  upon  for  future  use.  Specific  memory  power,  specific 
thinking  power,  etc.,  could  thus  be  put  in  “cold  storage”  as  it 
were,  for  a  season  when  they  might  be  needed. 

Modern  psychology,  however,  for  sufficient  reasons  which  do 
not  need  to  be  detailed  here,  has  largely  discarded  the  faculty 
idea,  together  with  much  of  its  attendant  storage  or  “reservoir” 
theory.  Some  of  the  faculty  names  are  preserved,  because  they 
express  something  which  only  the  names  can  compass ;  but,  never¬ 
theless,  mind,  to  the  modern  psychologist,  is  not  cut  up  into  sep¬ 
arate  parts,  and  does  not  act  in  separate  parts.  Mind  acts  as  a 
whole,  as  a  unit.  When  there  is  mental  activity,  it  is  activity  of 


12 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


the  whole  mind — of  a  unitary  mind.  But  this  unitary  mind  can 
be  focused  in  various  directions.  That  is,  one  may  speak  of 
memory  as  a  typical  process  of  psychical  activity.  Mind  as  a 
whole,  acts  in  this  form.  Recall  is  the  main  consideration,  and 
is  in  the  foreground ;  but  all  of  the  rest  of  the  mind  is  in  the  back¬ 
ground  contributing  its  part.  An  analogy  may  be  found  in  the 
one-celled  organism,  the  amoeba,  which  can  wrap  a  fold  of  its 
body  about  a  minute  particle  of  food,  use  the  enclosing  sack  as  a 
stomach,  and  digest  the  food.  The  focus  is  toward  the  sac;  the 
form  of  activity  is  digestion ;  but  all  the  amoeba  body  behind  the 
sac  is  contributing  its  share  to  the  process.  The  digestive  func¬ 
tion  is  a  function ;  but  not  a  function  separate  and  independent  in 
action.  To  carry  the  illustration  a  little  further,  the  amoeba  can 
also,  in  its  attempts  at  locomotion,  put  forth  a  “foot”  in  any 
direction.  Thus  the  body  is  focused  anew  in  a  new  form  of  activ¬ 
ity;  but  the  foot  is  not  separate  and  independent.  It  is,  as  it 
were,  only  a  sign  of  the  complete  and  unified  action  of  the  whole. 

It  is  only  in  some  such  sense  that  terms  such  as  sensation, 
memory,  imagination,  etc.,  are  used  in  modern  psychology. 
When  neural  activity  of  sufficient  intensity  occurs  in  the  brain  it 
is  accompanied  by  sensation  in  the  mind.  But  it  is  to  be  par¬ 
ticularly  remembered  that  this  means  just  what  it  says.  The 
sensation  is  in  the  mind  so  definitely  as  to  be  really  but  a  name 
for  a  focus  of  the  total  mind.  It  is  a  sign  of  the  complete  and 
unified  activity  of  this  focused  total  mind.  It  is  in  such  a  sense, 
only,  that  use  is  made  in  this  thesis  of  the  term  mental  function, 
or  of  the  specific  names  of  specific  functions. 


CHAPTER  II 


Current  Views  of  Adaptation  and  Mind  in  Relation 

to  Intelligence. 

I.  The  confusion  which  these  terms  present. 

Psychologists  are  agreed  upon  regarding  the  organism  as  an 
adaptation  system.  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  about  the 
role  played  by  mind ;  but  the  assumption  is  here  made  that  mind 
exists,  and  that  it  is,  at  times,  a  directive  agent  in  adaptation. 
What  about  the  relation  of  the  terms  adaptation  and  mind  to  the 
term  intelligence?  Current  usage  is  very  loose,  and  the  result  is 
confusion  which  can  be  cleared  up  only  by  first  finding  some  com¬ 
mon  ground  upon  which  all  views  meet,  and  then  analyzing  the 
difficulties  beyond  that  point.  The  common  ground  is  found  in 
the  fact  that  all  usage  agrees  in  placing  the  problems  of  intelli¬ 
gence  within  the  problem  of  adaptation. 

Further  analysis,  however,  shows  that  there  are  writers  who 
are  willing  to  call  all  adaptation  intelligent.  They  think  of  in¬ 
telligence  as  belonging  to  the  organic  as  opposed  to  the  inorganic:; 
and  they  think  of  the  organic  as  able  to  adapt  itself  to  environ¬ 
ment,  while  the  inorganic  can  not.  Possibly  some  who  passively 
accept  this  point  of  view  have  not  even  stopped  to  consider  that 
the  organic  includes  vegetable  as  well  as  animal  organisms,  and 
that  vegetable  organisms  do  make  adaptations  to  environment. 
If  this  were  called  to  their  attention  they  would  probably  readily 
agree  that  in  saying  that  the  organic  has  intelligence,  and  the 
inorganic  has  not,  they  had  meant  to  contrast  only  animal  organ¬ 
isms  with  the  inorganic. 

There  is  a  class  of  persons,  however,  who  intentionally  include 
both  animal  and  vegetable  organisms  when  they  contrast  the  or¬ 
ganic  and  the  inorganic,  and  who  are  willing  to  call  both  animal 
and  vegetable  organisms  intelligent,  because  of  the  power  of 
adaptation  which  they  possess.  That  is,  some  persons  do  inten- 


14 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


tionally  claim  that  ability  to  make  adaptations  is  identical  with 
intelligence. 

The  source  of  the  confusion  lies  in  the  failure  to  realize  that 
adaptation  is  such  a  broad  term  that  it  must  be  split  up  into  a 
number  of  different  types  of  adaptation.  Unless  these  types  are 
discriminated  in  thought  and  terminology,  those  who  discuss  the 
subject  are  not  speaking  the  same  language  because  they  are  not 
giving  the  same  connotation  to  the  terms  which  they  use.  Hence 
the  discrimination  of  adaptation  types  is  the  next  problem. 

II.  Types  of  adaptation  in  relation  to  mind  and  intelligence. 

A.  ADAPTATION  IN  THE  INORGANIC  WORLD. 

There  is  a  use  of  the  word  which  permits  it  to  apply  to  the  in¬ 
organic.  Cliffs  and  other  earth  contours  “are  adapted  to  environ¬ 
ment'  ’  when  they  yield  to  weathering  by  wind  and  water.  Iron 
rails  are  adapted  to  environment  when  they  expand  or  contract 
because  of  change  of  temperature.  But  these  bodies  are  adapted 
to  the  environment ;  they  do  not  adapt  themselves.  They  remain 
passive,  and  are  mechanically  adjusted  through  the  play  of  ex¬ 
ternal  agencies.  Given  approximately  the  same  conditions,  the 
variations  which  occur  tend  to  be  predetermined,  and  are  there¬ 
fore  highly  predictable.  The  body  exhibits  no  spontaneity. 
There  is  no  active,  inner,  selective  factor  which  interferes  to 
make  the  prediction  of  variation  uncertain. 

Now  the  idea  of  intelligence,  no  matter  how  else  limited,  has 
never  failed  to  carry  with  it  the  assumption  that,  to  some  degree 
at  least,  the  possessor  is  able  to  exercise  a  relatively  non-predic- 
table  selective  inner  influence  upon  its  own  destiny.  Hence  there 
is  no  current  reputable  usage  of  the  term  intelligence  which  will 
permit  its  application  to  the  inorganic.  This  is  so  self-evident 
that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  words  to  say  it,  if  it  were  not  for 
the  slip  which  sometimes  identifies  intelligence  with  adaptation. 
The  inorganic  does,  in  a  sense,  have  adaptation.  It  does  not  have 
intelligence.  Hence  intelligence  cannot  be  used  as  synonymous 
with  adaptation  without  opening  the  door  to  confusion.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  in  organizing  the  uses  of  the  term  adaptation,  this  thesis 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT  15 

will  distinguish  between  inorganic  and  organic  adaptation,  and 
will  deny  intelligence  to  the  inorganic. 

B.  ADAPTATION  IN  THE  ORGANIC  WORLD. 

i.  Primary  mechanical  types. 

a.  Tropic  adaptation. — There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to 
where  to  draw  the  line  between  tropism  and  real  reflex  or  instinc¬ 
tive  acts.  The  view  here  taken  will  be  that  which  limits  tropism 
to  those  organisms  which  lack  a  differentiated  nervous  system.* 
Such  primitive  organisms  possess  a  generally  diffused  sensitive¬ 
ness  of  the  total  protoplasmic  mass.  This  sensitiveness  promotes 
simple  adaptation,  but  these  adaptations  have  much  of  the  same 
invariable  (and  therefore  predictable)  character  as  do  the  adap¬ 
tations  in  the  organic  world.  Water,  light,  and  heat  have  been 
spoken  of  as  having  certain  mechanical  effects  upon  inorganic 
substances.  They  have  also  a  total  mechanical  effect  upon  or¬ 
ganic  tissue,  and  through  this  effect  may  promote  adapta¬ 
tions.  But  again,  the  body  (even  though  it  be  organic)  is 
adapted  to  the  environment,  it  does  not  adapt  itself.  Again 
there  is  no  active,  inner,  selective  factor,  no  initiative,  which  in¬ 
terferes  to  make  the  prediction  of  variation  uncertain.  Hence  in 
one  sense  there  is  no  variation  at  all,  and  certainly  no  intelligence. 

b.  Reflex  and  instinctive  adaptation. — In  inorganic  adaptations 
and  in  tropism  there  is  assumed  to  be  no  intelligence,  since  it  is 
conceived  that  in  them  the  adjustments  lack  spontaneity,  and  are 
practically  predictable.  The  body  is  at  the  mercy  of  its  own  ma¬ 
terial  composition  as  acted  upon  by  external  agencies.  But 
with  instinctive  adaptation  it  is  different.  Instinct  utilizes  a  dif¬ 
ferentiated  nervous  system  and  succeeds  in  being  less  rigid,  less 
predictable,  and  more  selective,  though  the  selection  occurs  in  a 
mechanical  manner. 

Herrick  says  that  theoretically  the  simplest  organized  nervous 
response  is  the  reflex  which  depends  upon  merely  the  simplest  re- 

*  Whether  or  not  this  includes  plant  life  is  a  somewhat  mooted  question ; 
but  the  essential  facts  of  the  present  discussion  will  not  be  unfavorably  af¬ 
fected  if  this  question  is  dropped,  and  the  matter  discussed  wholly  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  animal  organism. 


i6 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


ceptor  and  effector  organs,  and  one  motor  and  one  sensory 
neuron.  He  says  further  than  some  writers  have  been  willing 
to  classify  such  reflexes  with  the  tropisms;  but  that  others  con¬ 
ceive  the  pure  reflex  as  more  theoretical  than  actual,  and  tend  to 
move  immediately  from  unorganized  tropism  to  the  instinctive 
response  regarded  as  a  group  of  reflexes.  The  latter  view  will 
here  be  taken. 

From  one  point  of  view  the  organized  nervous  response  known 
as  instinct,  is  entirely  mechanical,  prearranged.  It  is  regarded 
as  a  selective  or  choosing  agency,  yet  as  selecting  those  stimuli, 
only,  to  which  it  is  tuned  to  respond  mechanically,  and  as 
always  responding  in  the  same  way  to  the  same  stimuli.  It 
is  thought  of  as  rejecting  or  ignoring  the  different;  but  when  a 
stimulus  comes  which  is  similar  to  that  to  which  it  was  meant  to 
respond,  and  to  which  it  has  always  responded,  it  is  conceived  as 
responding  again  in  the  same  way.  This  view  is  only  relatively 
true.  The  organism  which  responds  instinctively  through  the 
aid  of  a  nervous  system  is  not  so  rigid  and  invariable  in  its  adap¬ 
tation  to  environment  as  are  inorganic  bodies,  or  even  those  crea¬ 
tures  that  depend  upon  tropisms.  The  nervous  mechanism  per¬ 
mits  a  certain  limited  initiative  or  self-adjustment  in  adaptation, 
although  one  must  hasten  to  say  that  self-adjustment  is  not  here 
used  in  the  sense  of  purposive  or  intentional  adjustment.  There 
is  merely  a  mechanical  selection,  based  upon  limited  possibilities 
residing  in  an  originally  organized  mechanism.  Birds  of  the 
same  species  build  similar  nests ;  but  no  two  of  them  build  nests 
exactly  alike  in  all  particulars.  No  one  conceives  that  the  bird  in¬ 
tentionally  selects  the  changes.  The  power  of  selection  lies  in  the 
elasticity  of  the  mechanism,  and  this  elasticity  is  limited.  Yet  to 
this  limited  degree  the  creature  of  instinct  does  influence  its 
destiny  through  the  exercise  of  an  active,  inner,  selective  factor; 
and  to  this  degree  its  variation  is  non-predictable.  The  organ¬ 
ism  in  a  measure  adapts  itself,  and  is  not  adapted  to  its  environ¬ 
ment.  This  has  led  many  to  wish  to  use  the  word  intelligence  to 
apply  to  these  mechanical  variations  in  instinctive  behavior. 
There  is  a  limited  sense  in  which  the  word  might  be  so  used.  A 
problem  has  really  been  solved  through  focus  upon  a  situation, 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


1 7 


plus  action  which  is  based  upon  selected  (chosen)  similarities. 
But  the  control  in  the  whole  process  is  mechanical  and  not  in¬ 
tentional;  and  if  the  term  intelligence  is  applied,  it  needs  to  be 
qualified  by  emphasis  upon  the  mechanical  control.  This  type  of 
mechanically  controlled  intelligence,  this  plasticity  in  original  in¬ 
stinctive  response,  is  unlearned,  and  in  that  sense  non-productive. 
Only  original  neural  patterns  are  called  upon ;  but  there  is  a  limited 
mechanically  controlled  choice  between  persistent  originally  ar¬ 
ranged  systems  woven  between  the  neurons  which  are  the  units 
of  the  nervous  system. 

c.  Modified  instinctive  adaptation. — But  original  instinctive 
response  does,  at  times,  through  the  mere  conflict  of  the  original 
mechanical  systems,  cease  to  be  the  only  resource  of  an  organ¬ 
ism.  As  an  illustration  it  may  be  noted  that  an  organism  may 
have  an  original  system  of  response  which  makes  it  tend  to  avoid 
pain  through  withdrawing  movements.  It  may  have  another 
original  system  which  leads  to  approaching  movements  in  the 
presence  of  a  bright  object,  e.g.,  a  hot  stove.  The  mere  mechani¬ 
cal  conflict  of  these  two  systems  may  lead  to  the  suppression  of 
one  of  them  and  to  the  supremacy  of  the  other. 

The  characteristics  of  this  type  of  adaptation  are  very  similar 
to  those  of  original  instinctive  adaptation.  The  choice  is  on  the 
basis  of  similarities;  and  a  problem  is  solved,  although  there  is 
no  formation  of  new  neuron  patterns.  The  variation  is  also  less 
predictable  than  in  tropisms  or  in  inorganic  adaptation.  The  or¬ 
ganism  is  not  merely  adapted  to  environment.  To  a  degree  it  has 
initiative  and  it  adapts  itself.  There  is  an  inner,  active,  selective 
agency  at  work,  but  the  control  exercised  by  this  agency  upon 
the  destiny  of  the  creature  is  mechanical  and  not  intentional.  If 
there  is  intelligence,  it  is  still  mechanically  controlled  intelligence. 
Learning  may  be  said  to  have  taken  place,  because  the  variation, 
unlike  that  in  original  instinctive  response,  is  not  merely  a  me¬ 
chanical  choice  between  persistent  possibilities,  but  is  the  result  of 
a  permanent  suppression  of  one  original  tendency  in  favor  of 
another  original  tendency.  Thus  the  act  is  productive  mechani¬ 
cally  controlled  intelligence. 

d.  Associative  adaptation. — In  the  types  of  adaptation  thus  far 


i8 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


noted,  no  new  neuron  systems  are  formed.  There  is  often,  how¬ 
ever,  an  excess  neural  discharge.  This  comes  especially  in  times 
of  emotional  excitement.  Many  random  movements  are  then 
made  as  the  excess  discharge  forces  itself  through  new  channels. 
If  discharge  through  a  new  channel  brings  satisfaction,  the  new 
movement  is  associated  with  it,  and  this  movement  comes  more 
certainly  the  next  time.  Thus  gradually  new  neuron  patterns 
are  formed  and  behavior  is  varied ;  problems  are  solved ;  learning 
takes  place.  This  learning  utilizes  the  neural-switchboard,  and 
shoots  upward  to  a  sensory-motor  level  above  the  level  of  the 
mere  reflex  arc;  but  it  does  not  go  high  enough  to  get  into  the 
level  of  intentional  control.  It  is  at  first  a  chance  choice  due  to 
mechanical  spontaneity,  and  it  is  continued  as  a  mere  mechanical 
association  with  a  sense  of  well-being. 

Even  rote  learning  of  a  song  or  other  school  exercise  may 
occur  in  the  way  just  described;  and  many  common  manners  and 
customs  also  have  the  same  origin.  The  problem  is  not  inten¬ 
tionally  or  logically  attacked ;  but  repetition,  plus  a  favorable  af¬ 
fection,  blocks  out  the  new  pathways,  and  establishes  the  new 
neuron  bonds  or  patterns.  It  is  only  trial  and  error  learning,  or 
incidental  learning.  Yet  the  creature  is  not  merely  adapted  to 
its  environment.  It  adapts  itself,  although  in  a  mechanical 
manner.  Therefore  the  word  intelligence  is  applicable  if  the  act 
is  realized  to  be  an  example  of  mechanically  controlled  intelli¬ 
gence.  Mind,  if  present  at  all,  is  still  not  a  directive  agent.  In 
popular  terms,  a  mechanical  habit  has  been  mechanically  formed. 
This  type  of  adaptation  is  the  least  predictable  type  thus  for 
discussed. 


2.  Purposive  Type. 

a.  Intentional  adaptation. — There  have  been  discussed  two 
types  of  unintelligent  adaptation:  (a)  the  inorganic  adaptation; 
and  (b)  tropism.  There  have  also  been  discussed  three  types  of 
limited-intelligent  adaptation:  (a)  original  instinctive  adapta¬ 
tion;  (b)  modified  instinctive  adaptation;  and  (c)  associative 
adaptation.  But  there  comes  a  time  in  the  life  of  an  organism 
when  none  of  these  types  of  adaptation  can  meet  the  new  situation 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


19 


which  is  presented.  When  such  a  time  appears,  the  organism 
suffers,  or  even  perishes,  unless  it  is  an  organism  possessing  a 
mind  which  can  break  in  to  solve  its  problem  by  influencing  the 
nervous  currents  to  the  formation  of  new  neuron  patterns  neces¬ 
sary  to  a  new  adjustment  intentionally  chosen  out  of  the  possibili¬ 
ties  which  the  situation  presents. 

The  theory  involved  in  the  interference  of  mind  in  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  new  systems  of  response  has  already  been  briefly  out¬ 
lined.  It  is  that  there  must  be  involved  a  certain  grade  of  refine¬ 
ment  of  the  nervous  structure  found  only  in  the  cortex,  and  a 
certain  intensity  of  the  neural  activity  in  the  cortex,  before  the 
limen  is  passed  and  the  mental  life  is  able  to  function.  That  is  to 
say,  that  mind  is  coextensive  with  (1)  a  certain  intensity  of 
neural  activity,  and  (2)  in  certain  structures.  One  of  these  con¬ 
ditions  alone  is  not  enough.  Mere  intensity  in  the  lower  struc¬ 
tures,  or  mere  activity  in  the  cortex,  must  give  place  to  a  certain 
intensity  in  the  cortex  before  the  limen  is  passed.  (But  it  is 
conceivable  that  cortical  activity  which  is  not  intense  enough  to 
pass  the  limen  may  have  an  indirect  mechanical  influence  upon 
mind,  through  its  influence  upon  the  cortex. ) 

Below  the  limen,  therefore,  is  mechanically  controlled  adap¬ 
tation.  The  function  of  this  intentional  activity  of  mind  is  to 
meet  those  emergencies  in  which  the  mechanical  systems  break 
down.  Asuming  that  mind  is  able  to  do  this,  a  certain  analysis 
may  be  made  of  the  method.  This  analysis  cannot  fail  to  be 
rather  rigid  and  dogmatic,  but  it  is  not  intended  to  be  inflexible. 
All  discussion  of  types  must  attempt  to  make  the  type  specific  as 
if  it  stood  out  sharply  by  itself,  even  though  in  reality  it  grades 
imperceptibly  into  adjacent  types.  Purposive  adaptation  does 
not  always  appear  unadulterated ;  but,  theoretically,  in  its  pure 
form,  it  presents  the  following  named  elements,  each  one  of  which 
is  to  be  understood  as  intentionally  carried  out: 

1.  Focus  upon  possibilities;  in  other  words,  concentration,  or 
attention. 

2.  Pause;  the  mechanical  currents  must  be  temporarily  in¬ 
hibited. 


20 


.  JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


3.  Selective  activity;  significant  elements  in  present  and  past 
situations  must  be  abstracted  and  held  by  themselves. 

4.  Relating  of  the  selected  elements.* 

5.  Action  upon  the  relationships  discovered. 

When  the  literature  is  examined  in  the  next  section  it  will  be 

found  that  the  modern  tendencv  is  to  reserve  the  term  intelli- 

•/ 

gnce  for  this  type  of  adjustment,  or  adaptation,  which  solves  prob¬ 
lems  by  the  steps  just  enumerated.  However,  if  one  has  de¬ 
cided  to  use  the  expression  ‘'mechanically  controlled  intelligence” 
for  unintentional  adjustments,  he  can  use  a  qualifying  term  for 
these  directed  adaptations,  and  call  them  “intentionally  controlled 
intelligence.”  They  may  also  be  called  productive  intention¬ 
ally  controlled  intelligence,  since  they  really  produce  new  connec¬ 
tions,  and  new  behavior. 

This  same  type  of  adaptation  has  other  names  such  as  inten¬ 
tional  learning  and  thinking.  It  represents  the  height  of  power 
of  the  active,  inner,  selective  factor  which  produces  non-predic- 
table  variation.  It  is  the  means  by  which  the  organism  escapes 
being  merely  adapted  to  its  environment,  and  succeeds  in  adapt¬ 
ing  itself  to  the  environment,  or  in  adapting  the  environment  to 
itself.  It  is  the  open  door  to  controlled  progress. 

Throughout  this  thesis  therefore  there  will  be  made  an  at¬ 
tempt  to  separate  the  various  aspects  of  mechanically  controlled 
adaptation  from  intentionally  controlled  adaptation.  The  follow¬ 
ing  list  of  terms  wll  help  to  insure  this  separation : 

Inorganic  adaptation  (unintelligent). 

Organic  tropic  adaptation  (unintelligent). 

Non-productive  mechanically  controlled  intelligence. 

a.  Original  instinctive  adaptation. 

Productive  mechanically  controlled  intelligence. 

a.  Modified  instinctive  adaptation. 

b.  Associative  adaptation. 

Productive  intentionally  controlled  intelligence. 

*What  kinds  of  relationships  is  the  mind  able  to  conceive?  Cause  and 
effect,  time,  space,  genus-species,  part-whole,  likeness  and  difference ;  how 
many  are  there  to  be  found?  Can  all  be  reduced  to  one;  viz.,  similarity? 
Time  relationships  are  gathered  because  they  are  similar;  so  with  place 
relationships,  etc.  Then  ability  to  relate  becomes  just  that  ability  which  is 
able  to  recognize  in  present  experience  an  element  similar  to  one  belonging 
to  a  past  experience. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


21 


3.  Secondary  mechanical  type. 

a.  Reproductive  (habitual)  adaptation. — It  is  well  known  that 
an  act  which  once  required  the  immediate,  purposive  supervision 
of  mind,  may,  through  repetition  and  other  circumstances,  fall 
back  to  be  performed  by  new-formed  mechanical-neural  systems. 
Mind  is  thus  released  for  new  ventures  in  new  fields.  The  act 
that  is  thus  relegated  to  mechanical  systems  is  no  longer  an  in¬ 
telligent  act  in  the  sense  of  intentionally  controlled  intelligence. 
It  is  intentionally  controlled  intelligence  only  in  so  far  as  it  has 
not  been  so  relegated.  The  process  of  relegation  consists  in  a 
gradual  fading  away,  out  of  the  focus  of  mind  into  the  fringe. 
The  act  thus  becomes  more  and  more  predictable,  and  finally 
drops  entirely  below  the  limen  into  the  mechanical,  the  unintel¬ 
ligent,  or  the  mechanical-intelligent,  if  one  wishes  to  use  this 
term.  It  becomes  habit,  and,  for  the  purposes  of  this  discus¬ 
sion,  belongs  with  the  mechanical  adaptations.  In  this  connec¬ 
tion  it  can,  through  mechanical  conflict  with  other  mechanical 
systems,  bring  about  mechanical  learning,  just  as  in  the  already 
discussed  conflict  of  two  original  mechanical  systems. 

But  this  act  which  was  once  intentionally  controlled,  and  has 
now  become  mechanical,  has  not  at  all  the  same  significance  as  the 
original  mechanical.  It  stands  not  only  for  mechanism,  but  it 
stands  also  as  evidence  of  a  former  exercise  of  intentionally  con¬ 
trolled  intelligence.  It  can  be  brought  back  into  the  intentional ; 
and  it  could  not  have  been  performed  at  all  without  the  original 
exercise  of  the  intentional.  It  is,  therefore,  secondary  evidence  of 
intentionally  controlled  intelligence,  since  in  all  probability,  the 
formerly  exercised  power  still  persists  in  the  organism.  And  this 
secondary  evidence  often  has  an  importance  nearly  or  quite  equal 
to  the  primary  evidence  afforded  by  a  new  adaptation  itself. 

This  secondary  evidence  of  intentionally  controlled  intelli¬ 
gence,  this  giving  back  of  something  learned  at  a  previous  time, 
may  be  called  pedagogical  intelligence,  or  reproductive  intelli¬ 
gence.  It  is  the  diary  of  the  intentionally  controlled  intelligence. 


22 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


III.  The  definition  of  intelligence. 

It  has  been  customary  among  students  of  intelligence  to  say 
that  it  is  not  known  what  intelligence  is.  The  view  taken  here  is 
that  what  has  been  meant  is  that  types  of  intelligence  have  not 
been  discriminated,  or  that  the  fundamental  nature  of  intelligence 
has  not  been  known ;  but  that  it  has  been  known  what  intelligence 
is,  and  that  the  preceding  discussion  has  shown  what  it  is.  To 
accomplish  this  end  did  not  require  experimentation,  but  only  an 
examination  of  the  usage  of  the  word.  For  any  term  has  content 
only  through  usage,  and  that  usage  may  give  it  any  content  what¬ 
ever.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  usage  of  the  word  intelligence 
has  been  rather  definite,  except  that  types  of  intelligence  have  been 
allowed  to  overlap.  It  follows  that  the  definition  of  intelligence 
should  be  broad  enough  to  include  all  types  admitted  by  usage, 
and  that  supplementary  definitions  of  the  individual  types  should 
be  given.  The  broad  and  all-inclusive  definition  may  be  worded 
as  follows: 

An  organism  is  intelligent  when  it  possesses  the  ability 

TO  INFLUENCE  ITS  DESTINY  THROUGH  THE  UTILIZATION  OF  AN 
INNER,  ACTIVE,  NON-PREDICTABLE,  SELECTIVE  FACTOR  WHICH 
CHOOSES  ON  THE  BASIS  OF  SIMILARITY. 

This  definition,  since  it  includes  mechanical  choice,  does  allow 
intelligence  to  practically  all  animal  organisms;  and  that  is  just 
what  some  writers  of  importance  wish  to  do.  If,  however,  one 
wishes  to  distinguish  intentionally  controlled  intelligence  as  a 
pivotal  type  (and  this  is  the  only  type  which  many  writers  rec¬ 
ognize)  he  must  make  a  more  qualified  definition  as  follows: 

An  organism  has  intentionally  controlled  intelli¬ 
gence  WHEN  IT  POSSESSES  THE  ABILITY  TO  INFLUENCE  ITS  DES¬ 
TINY  THROUGH  THE  INTENTIONAL  UTILIZATION  OF  AN  INNER, 
ACTIVE,  NON-PREDICTABLE,  SELECTIVE  FACTOR  TO  EFFECT  A  SPE¬ 
CIFIC  PURPOSE  THROUGH  INTENTIONAL  CHOICE  BASED  UPON  SIMI¬ 
LARITIES. 


IV.  Summary  of  Chapter  II. 

I.  It  is  agreed  that  the  problem  of  intelligence  is  within  the 
problem  of  adaptation. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


23 


2.  But  adaptation  is  in  no  sense  intelligent  until  a  body  utilizes 
an  inner,  active,  non-predictable,  selective  factor  to  influence  its 
destiny.  Hence  inorganic  adaptations,  and  even  organic  tro- 
pisms,  are  not  intelligent. 

3.  Organized  response  may  be  mechanically  controlled  as  in 
(a)  original  instinctive  adaptation;  (b)  modified  instinctive 
adaptation;  (c)  associative  adaptation.  If  these  are  regarded  as 
intelligent  at  all,  it  can  only  be  in  a  limited  sense,  and  they  should 
be  known  as  mechanically  controlled  intelligence. 

4.  Organized  response  may  be  intentionally  controlled.  This 
is  the  type  of  adaptation  generally  recognized  as  intelligent.  It 
is  intentionally  controlled  intelligence  in  contrast  to  the  mechani¬ 
cal  control.  Its  variation  is  relatively  non-predictable. 

5.  Intentionally  controlled  intelligence  may  lapse  into  mechan¬ 
ism,  and  become  a  secondary  mechanical  type,  valuable  as  the 
diary  of  the  intentionally  controlled  intelligence. 

6.  Intelligence  may,  therefore,  be  defined  as  in  Section  III  of 
this  chapter. 


CHAPTER  III 


Types  of  Studies  in  the  Quantitative  Determination 

of  Intelligence. 

The  lack  of  discrimination  between  the  types  of  adaptation 
discussed  in  the  last  chapter,  has  naturally  encouraged  looseness 
in  discrimination  between  types  of  experimental  studies  of  intelli¬ 
gence.  There  is  also  an  added  difficulty  arising  from  the  ten¬ 
dency  to  claim  that  one  has  measured  intelligence  when,  in  reality, 
he  has  not  done  so  at  all,  but  has  only  measured  some  trait  cor¬ 
related  with  intelligence.  These  points  will  be  covered  very  brief¬ 
ly  in  the  present  chapter,  the  latter  being  taken  up  first. 

I.  Measures ,  not  of  intelligence ,  but  of  factors  found  to  be 

correlated  with  intelligence . 

A.  CORRELATION  OF  PHYSICAL  TRAITS  WITH  INTELLIGENCE. 

If  it  is  found  that  intelligence  usually  goes  with  a  head  of  a 
certain  width  or  length,  then  the  measuring  of  the  heads  of  a 
group  of  people  may  give  an  insight  into  the  probable  amount  of 
intelligence  in  the  group.  But,  in  spite  of  this,  it  cannot  then  be 
truthfully  said  that  the  intelligence  has  been  measured.  The 
presence  of  intelligence  has  only  been  inferred  as  a  result  of  the 
head  measurements.  In  one  sense  the  result  is  the  same  no  matter 
how  it  is  stated;  but,  if,  in  such  a  case,  intelligence  is  really 
thought  of  as  measured,  false  ideas  as  to  the  true  nature  of  in¬ 
telligence  are  fostered. 

Good  examples  of  the  measurement  of  physical  traits  correlated 
with  intelligence  are  found  in  the  early  part  of  the  first  volume 
of  Whipple’s  “Manual  of  Mental  and  Physical  Tests”.  First  are 
certain  anthropometric  measures,  such  as  have  often  been  used  in 
the  identification  of  criminals,  and  in  the  relation  of  growth  to 
disease,  etc.  Definite  degrees  of  these  traits  have  also  been  found 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


25 


usually  to  be  associated  with  intelligence,  and  the  presence  of  the 
given  degree  of  the  trait  therefore  leads  to  the  inference  of  the 
presence  of  intelligence.  Examples  of  such  measurements  are 
those  of  height  (standing  and  sitting),  weight,  diameter  of  skull, 
girth  of  skull,  etc.  In  like  manner  are  utilized  measures  of  vital 
capacity,  strength  of  grip,  physical  fatigue,  quickness  of  move¬ 
ment,  accuracy  of  movement,  and  involuntary  movement.  The 
same  thing  also  applies  to  measures  of  sensory  defect  due  to 
physical  conditions.  Deafness,  long-  and  short-sightedness,  color¬ 
blindness,  control  of  eye  muscles,  and  such  may  be  cited  as  ex¬ 
amples.  Any  one  of  these  traits  may  be  found  in  varying  degrees 
of  correlation  with  intelligence  or  lack  of  intelligence.  To  meas¬ 
ure  the  trait  may  lead  to  results  which  justify  the  assumption  that 
intelligence  will  be  found  along  with  it ;  but  it  does  not  determine 
the  degree  of  the  intelligence  either  for  the  group  or  for  the  indi¬ 
vidual. 

B.  CORRELATION  OF  MENTAL  TRAITS  WITH  INTELLIGENCE. 

Studies  which  merely  show  that  amount  of  perception,  memory, 
etc.,  is  correlated  with  intelligence,  are  not  measures  of  intelli¬ 
gence  itself.  Again  it  will  prevent  confusion  concerning  the  true 
nature  of  intelligence  if  such  studies  can  be  set  off  by  themselves 
as  the  studies  of  physical  traits  have  been. 

It  is  common  to  think  of  a  person  of  good  perceptive  power, 
good  memory  power,  etc.,  as  an  intelligent  person.  But  it  has 
been  repeatedly  proved  that  even  the  feebleminded  may  possess 
these  powers.  The  difficulty  lies  in  the  identification  of  (1)  the 
admitted  possession  of  the  trait,  with  (2)  the  ability  to  manipu¬ 
late  the  trait  in  the  service  of  non-predictable  variation.  Per¬ 
cepts  and  memories  are  bundles  of  relationships.  A  person  is  not 
born  with  them.  Hence  their  building  up  may  be  called  varia¬ 
tion;  but,  in  the  main  it  is  a  predictable  variation.  There  is  a 
natural  course  of  events  on  the  basis  of  which  one  could,  if  he 
knew  all  the  circumstances,  predict  the  formation  of  percepts, 
memories,  etc.,  just  as  he  could  under  similar  circumstance  pre¬ 
dict  the  crystallization  of  steel  under  shock.  This  predictable 
variation,  the  main  objective  of  the  extreme  “Behaviorist”,  is  not 


26 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


intelligence.  Intelligence  is  not  present  until  mental  elements 
(functions)  are,  either  mechanically  or  intentionally,  brought 
into  relationships  which  result  in  non-predictable  variation.  The 
real  measure  of  intelligence  measures  spontaneity  or  initiative.  It 
is  true  that  in  the  formation  of  percepts,  etc.,  there  may  have  been 
present  in  a  particular  case  some  of  this  initiative  (mechanical  or 
intentional) ;  but  much  of  the  process  is  likely  to  have  been  of 
the  predictable  kind ;  and  one  does  not  with  certainty  get  at  the 
spontaneity,  therefore,  through  the  measure  of  the  function.  The 
functions  are  prerequisite  to  intelligence,  since  the  initiative  can 
not  come  if  the  functions  are  lacking.  But  the  functions  may  by 
measurement  be  found  in  varying  amounts,  and  yet  intelligence, 
non-predictable  variation,  be  lacking,  or  at  least  unproved  because 
it  is  obscured  by  the  excess  of  predictable  variation  with  which  it 
is  associated.  If  one  wishes  a  reliable  measure  of  intelligence  he 
tests  not  the  amount  of  the  function,  but  the  amount  of  initiative 
which  the  creature  can  produce  through  the  discovery  and  utiliza¬ 
tion  of  relationships  between  the  functions. 

Examples  of  quantitative  measures  of  sensation  are  the  com¬ 
mon  tests  of  visual  acuity  (Whipple,  Test  14),  and  auditory 
acuity  (Whipple,  Test  18),  etc.;  of  perception,  are  the  common 
tachistoscopic  tests  of  range  of  visual  attention  (Whipple,  Test 
24),  and  visual  apprehension  (Whipple,  Test  25),  etc.;  of  rote 
memory,  (Whipple,  Test  38),  etc.  One  may  find  these  and 
other  mental  abilities  correlated  with  intelligence ;  but  the  meas¬ 
urement  of  them  is  not  a  measurement  of  intelligence  itself. 

II.  Real  measures  of  intelligence. 

A.  MEASURES  OF  MECHANICALLY  CONTROLLED  INTELLIGENCE. 

i.  Original  types  (unlearned). 

Here  belong  all  those  studies  of  endowment  which  aim  to 
achieve  a  knowledge  of  the  amount  of  a  creature’s  orginal  and 
unlearned  ability  to  solve  problems,  e.g.,  non-predictable  varia¬ 
tions  in  the  nest  building  of  birds,  in  the  migration  of  species,  in 
the  food  habits  of  wild  mice,  etc.  The  variations  here  studied, 
however,  are  those  which  come  within  an  original  range  of  native 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


27 


ability,  and  not  those  which  supplant  or  augment  original  abili¬ 
ties.  They  are  discussed  in  the  former  chapter  under  the  head  of 
original  instinctive  adaptation. 

2.  Learned  types. 

These  are  the  ones  previously  discussed  as  modified  instinctive 
adaptations  and  associative  adaptations.  They  represent  real 
non-predictable  variation,  but  it  is  still  of  the  mechanically  con¬ 
trolled  type.  The  field  has  been  much  exploited,  and  illustra¬ 
tions  are  numerous  and  well-known.  Typical  ones  are  the  ani¬ 
mal  intelligence  experiments  of  Lloyd  Morgan,  Thorndike, 
Yerkes,  and  Watson.  All  experiments  in  unintentional,  associa¬ 
tive,  learning,  or  incidental  learning  in  either  human  beings  or 
animals  belong  here. 

It  may  be  said  in  passing  that  if  the  distinction  between  me¬ 
chanically  controlled  intelligence  and  intentionally  controlled  in¬ 
telligence  were  kept  well  in  mind,  much  light  would  be  thrown 
upon  the  dispute  as  to  whether  or  not  animals  are  intelligent. 
Animals  do  solve  problems,  but  the  consensus  of  opinion  is  that 
they  solve  them  either  through  the  small  latitude  of  non-predict- 
able  variation  allowed  by  instinct,  or  they  solve  them  through 
conflict  of  instincts  or  through  association.  They  do  not  solve 
them  through  working  out  of  a  deliberately  chosen  purpose  based 
upon  relationships  intentionally  sought  between  mental  elements. 
From  this  point  of  view,  animals  have  mechanically  controlled 
intelligence,  but  not  intentionally  controlled  intelligence. 

B.  MEASURES  OF  INTENTIONALLY  CONTROLLED  INTELLIGENCE. 

Illustrations  of  intentionally  controlled  intelligence  must  be 
those  featuring  immediate  and  intentional  problem  solving. 
There  can  be  included  no  primarily  mechanical  associative  or 
instinctive  processes.  A  new  situation  presents  itself  and  is  pur- 
posively  attacked  and  solved  through  the  discovery  of  new  rela¬ 
tionships.  Cats  get  out  of  cages  through  mechanically  controlled 
intelligence.  A  normal  human  being  in  the  same  situation  uses 
intentionally  controlled  intelligence,  and  attempts  purposively  to 


28 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


apply  past  experience  to  the  present  situation,  find  the  similari¬ 
ties  between  the  past  and  present,  and  so  find  the  way  out. 

Some  of  the  best  developed  modern  single  measure  of  inten¬ 
tionally  controlled  intelligence  are  certain  tests  of  intentional 
sensory  discrimination,  certain  picture-completion  and  other  per¬ 
formance  tests,  the  synonym-antonym  test,  the  analogies,  etc.  As 
has  already  been  said,  this  type  of  intentionally  controlled  adapta¬ 
tion  is  the  only  type  that  many  writers  are  now  willing  to  call 

intelligence;  but  it  can  do  no  harm  to  call  mechanical  phases  of 
adaptation  mechanically  controlled  intelligence,  if  mechanically 
controlled  intelligence  is  definitely  discriminated  as  a  type. 

C.  MEASURES  OF  REPRODUCTIVE  INTELLIGENCE. 

The  human  mind  is  so  constituted  that  after  it  has  solved  a 
problem  once  or  several  times,  the  solution  becomes  mechanical. 
At  first  there  is  required  active  attention  and  intention;  later 
attention  becomes  what  has  been  called  secondary  passive,  inten¬ 
tion  drops  out,  and  the  act  performs  itself.  It  becomes  repro¬ 
ductive  intelligence  because  it  reproduces  mechanically  the  acts 
of  the  intentionally  controlled  intelligence.  Many  persons  have 
not  been  willing  to  call  pedagogical  tests  intelligence  tests.  It  is 
true  that  a  test  in  geography  or  history  may  require  merely  the 
mechanical  reproduction  of  something  previously  learned;  but 
the  person  may,  and  probably  did  originally,  pick  up  much  of 
the  knowledge  intentionally.  And  psychologists  are  more  and 
more  coming  to  believe  that  measures  which  determine  how  much 
a  person  has  intentionally  achieved  through  a  term  of  years  are 
often  more  significant  than  those  measures  which  only  find  out 
his  present  achievement  through  a  period  of  an  hour  more  or 
less.  So  psychologists  are  not  nearly  so  much  afraid  as  they  used 
to  be  of  the  pedagogical  measurement  regarded  as  an  intelli¬ 
gence  measurement.  There  is,  however,  a  fundamental  diffi¬ 
culty  in  the  fact  that  one  seldom  is  able  to  tell  exactly  how  much 
of  the  reproduced  material  was  originally  acquired  mechanically, 
and  how  much  was  acquired  intentionally.  Hence  one  cannot  tell 
how  much  credit  to  assign  to  mechanically  controlled  intelli- 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


29 


gence,  and  how  much  to  assign  to  intentionally  controlled  intelli¬ 
gence. 

Illustrations  of  pedagogical  (reproductive  intelligence)  meas¬ 
ures  are  those  of  arithmetical  fundamentals  such  as  the  Courtis, 
series  A  and  B ;  arithmetical  reasoning,  such  as  the  Stone  Reason¬ 
ing  Test;  reading  scales,  such  as  the  Kansas  standardized  read¬ 
ing  tests;  handwriting  scales,  such  as  the  Thorndike  scale  and 
the  Ayres  scale;  and  the  composition  scales,  such  as  the  Hillegas 
scale,  the  Harvard-Newton  scale,  and  the  Willing  scale.  In 
fact  one  now  finds  such  scales  for  practically  every  subject  of 
instruction. 


CHAPTER  IV 


The  Fundamental  Nature  of  Intentional  Adaptation. 

I.  The  “ common  factor  ’  in  intelligence. 

Certain  types  of  adaptation  have  been  discriminated  in  previous 
chapters.  Evolutionary  tendencies  in  modern  thought  would 
naturally  lead  one  to  suspect  a  development  from  one  type  to 
another,  but  it  is  not  the  intention  to  pursue  that  idea  at  this 
time.  It  is  now  necessary,  however,  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  discriminations  heretofore  made  between  the  non-intelli- 
gent,  the  mechanical-intelligent,  and  the  intentional  ( purposive  )- 
intelligent,  are  all  based  upon  the  conception  of  a  “common 
factor”  in  intelligence.  That  common  factor  has  several  names 
such  as  seeing  relations,  thinking,  judging,  profiting  by  exper¬ 
ience,  etc. ;  and  its  exercise  results  in  initiative,  spontaneity,  or 
non-predictable  variation.  Binet’s  own  statement  of  this  common 
factor  is  very  significant,  although  he  does  not  use  it  to  make 
the  distinctions  herein  urged.  He  says  :*  “It  seems  to  us  that 
in  intelligence  there  is  a  fundamental  faculty,  the  alteration  or 
the  lack  of  which  is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  practical  life. 
This  faculty  is  judgment,  otherwise  called  good  sense,  practical 
sense,  initiative,  the  faculty  of  adapting  one’s  self  to  circum¬ 
stances.  To  judge  well,  to  comprehend  well,  to  reason  well, 
these  are  the  essential  activities  of  intelligence.  A  person  may  be 
a  moron  or  an  imbecile  if  he  is  lacking  in  judgment;  but  with 
good  judgment  he  can  never  be  either.”  Hence  it  is  here  con¬ 
ceived  that  where  the  capacity  for  judgment  and  non-predictable 
variation  is  lacking,  intelligence  is  lacking.  It  has  also  been 
shown  that  above  the  unintelligent,  there  is  a  level  of  mechani¬ 
cally  controlled  intelligence  (original  and  acquired),  marked  by 
mechanical  judgment;  and  above  that,  a  level  of  intentionally 

*  The  Development  of  Intelligence  in  Children,  Vineland  Laboratory, 
1916;  p.  42. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


3i 


controlled  intelligence,  marked  by  purposive  judgment.  It  may 
be  pointed  out  that  the  discrimination  between  the  mechanical- 
intelligence  and  the  purposive-intelligence  is  a  discrimination 
based  not  upon  quantity  of  the  common  factor,  but  upon  quality 
of  that  factor.  Judgment,  initiative,  spontaneity,  of  a  mechani¬ 
cal  quality  marks  mechanically  controlled  initiative.  Judgment, 
initiative,  spontaneity  of  a  purposive  quality  marks  intentionally 
controlled  intelligence.  The  remainder  of  the  thesis  will  be  oc¬ 
cupied  with  attempts  to  determine  the  fundamental  nature  of  the 
intentional  or  purposive  type  of  intelligence,  together  with  a 
consideration  of  the  implications  arising  from  the  conclusions 
reached. 

There  are,  of  course,  all  degrees  of  gradation  between  a  com¬ 
pletely  mechanical  adaptation,  and  one  which  is  completely  in¬ 
tentional.  It  is  even  true  that  very  many  adaptations  which  on 
the  surface  are  intentional,  are  at  bottom  a  mixture  of  both  types. 
But  since  the  crucial  importance  of  the  intentional  type  as  the 
key  to  directed  human  progress  is  acknowledged,  and  since  it 
does,  at  times  at  least,  occur  approximately  according  to  the 
rather  schematic  plan  already  outlined,  it  can  do  no  harm  to  con¬ 
tinue  the  discussion  from  that  standpoint. 

In  the  type  of  adaptation  under  consideration,  mind  is  con¬ 
ceived  to  be  an  active  factor.  Through  it  a  positive  purpose  of 
an  individual  is  carried  to  its  conclusion.  It  is  a  method  of 
active  solution  of  problems,  through  focus  upon  the  possibilities 
of  the  situation,  pause,  selection  of  significant  elements,  and  the 
recognition  of  relationships  between  the  selected  elements. 
But  what  are  the  elements  between  which  relationships  are 
found?  They  may  be  perceived  material  things,  images  of 
things,  or  symbols  of  things.  With  relation  to  any  pair  of  such 
elements,  thinking  is  possible.  Each  one  of  the  pair  is,  as  it 
were,  held  out  by  itself,  and  compared  with  the  other.  Then  de¬ 
cision  is  made  as  to  whether  or  not  they  belong  together.  But  it 
is  at  first  easier  to  do  this  when  the  objects  can  be  obtained  and 
handled  (perceived)  than  it  is  to  deal  with  images  of  the  objects. 
And  it  is  easier  to  deal  with  the  images  than  it  is  to  deal  with 
symbols  of  the  images  or  of  the  things  themselves.  Long  before 


32 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


there  was  any  organized  science  of  psychology  the  intuitive  psy¬ 
chology  of  the  people  made  its  own  statement  of  this  fact  by 
saying  that  it  is  easier  to  solve  a  problem  in  the  concrete  than  in 
the  abstract.  It  is  the  idea  involved  in  this  natural  and  funda¬ 
mental  usage  which  is  to  be  here  appealed  to  in  attempting  to 
solve  the  fundamental  nature  of  intentionally  controlled  intelli¬ 
gence,  just  as  usage  was  appealed  to  in  former  chapters  to  estab¬ 
lish  the  definition  of  intelligence. 

The  relationship  under  consideration  is  apparent  even  in  dif¬ 
ferent  degrees  of  development  of  the  human  race.  The  savage 
does  not  deal  with  abstractions  so  easily  as  with  the  concrete 
things  that  come  to  his  hands.  The  average  intelligent  member 
of  modern  civilization  who  easily  solves  ordinary  problems  in 
arithmetic,  finds  himself  baffled  in  the  presence  of  the  same  prob¬ 
lems  put  into  generalized  terms.  Inevitably  when  thinking  of 
these  things  one  leans  toward  a  genetic  theory  of  development 
even  within  intentionally  controlled  intelligence  itself.  For  al¬ 
though  the  mind  acts  as  a  unit  in  intentional  control,  it  is  never¬ 
theless  easy  to  believe  that  early  in  the  evolution  of  this  power, 
although  all  possibilities  of  mental  action  were  potentially  pres¬ 
ent,  the  unit-activity  (function)  of  perception  was  predominant 
in  problem  solving.  On  this  theory,  progress  has  consisted  in 
the  gradual  supplementing  of  the  perceptual  activity  by  other 
unit-activities  involving  images  and  symbols. 

Moreover,  it  seems  probable  that  this  same  progression  rough¬ 
ly  characterizes  the  life  of  the  individual.  It  is  probable  that  in 
his  acts  of  intentionally  controlled  intelligence  he  deals  easiest  and 
oftenest  with  things,  then  with  images  of  things,  then  with  sym¬ 
bols.  Upon  this  theory,  feeblemindedness,  which  is  now  every¬ 
where  recognized  as  retardation  in  mental  development,  is  a  re¬ 
tardation  in  passing  from  the  preponderance  of  one  of  these 
forms  of  activity  to  another.  Thus  the  common  factor,  judg¬ 
ment,  again  asserts  its  power  by  determining  levels  even  within 
intentionally  controlled  intelligence  itself ;  and  the  person  of  low 
purposive  intelligence  is  seen  to  be  the  one  arrested  primarily 
upon  the  level  of  concrete  relationships,  which  his  more  fortunate 
mates  pass  on  to  the  more  ready  manipulation  of  the  image  and 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


33 


the  symbol.  But  again  it  is  quality,  or  type,  of  judgment,  and 
not  quantity,  which  determines  the  levels;  although  one  is,  of 
course,  immediately  interested  in  the  quantity  of  the  given  qual¬ 
ity  which  can  be  delivered. 

But  the  conception  of  intelligence  as  arranged  in  levels,  which 
levels  are  differentiated  in  terms  of  mental  functions,  or  mental 
unit-activities,  is  not  identical  with  that  theory  of  intelligence 
which  attempts  to  measure  intelligence  through  mere  quantitative 
measurement  of  each  function.  Binet,  and  many  others,  have 
shown  very  clearly  that  a  person  may  have  good  memory,  for 
example,  and  yet  be  unintelligent.  Binet  says:*  “Just  at  the 
present  time  we  are  observing  a  backward  girl  who  is  developing 
before  our  astonished  eyes  a  memory  very  much  greater  than  our 
own.  We  measured  that  memory  and  we  are  not  deceived  con¬ 
cerning  it.  Nevertheless  that  girl  presents  a  most  beautifully 
classic  type  of  imbecility.”  The  point  is  that  the  memory  is 
there,  but  that  the  power  to  make  non-predictable  relationships 
between  memories  is  lacking.  Thus,  as  shown  in  Chapter  III, 
the  quantitative  measurement  of  the  function  is  quite  different 
from  the  measurement  of  power  to  solve  problems  in  terms  of  the 
function.  Yet  the  functions  do  determine  the  levels  upon  which 
the  problem-saving  may  occur.  To  handle  as  many  levels  as 
there  are  functions,  however  (sensation,  perception,  imagination, 
etc.),  attempts  a  minute  classification  which  it  is  relatively  im¬ 
possible  to  achieve,  because  of  the  overlapping  of  the  modes  of 
activity.  It  is  safer  to  condense  the  levels  to  three:  (i)  that  of 
sensation  and  perception,  (2)  that  of  the  image,  and  (3)  that 
of  the  idea  regarded  as  a  symbol  plus  a  meaning.  Intentional 
adaptation  (purposive  problem-solving,  thinking,  learning)  may 
take  place  through  the  relating  of  percepts,  or  of  images,  or  of 
ideas. 

Evidences  which  point  toward  the  truth  of  this  hypothesis  are 
numerous  in  popular  experience,  and  in  the  existing  literature  of 
intelligence.  In  fact  the  evidences  are  so  clear  that  it  is  surpris¬ 
ing  that  they  have  not  hitherto  been  gathered  up  and  applied  to 

*  The  Development  of  Intelligence  in  Children,  Vineland  Laboratory,  1916; 
P-  43- 


34 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


the  better  understanding  of  the  nature  of  intelligence,  and  to 
methods  of  measurement  of  intelligence.  The  steam  has  been 
lifting  the  lid  of  the  kettle  for  a  long  time,  but  the  significance 
of  the  fact  has  remained  obscure. 

II.  Existing  evidences  that  purposive  intelligence  is  conditioned 
by  levels  based  upon  an  analysis  of  mind. 

1.  The  generally  accepted  idea  that  the  abstract  is  “harder  than 

the  concrete”. 

Since  concrete  and  abstract  are  only  popular  terms  for  the 
more  technical  psychological  concepts  of  sensation,  perception, 
memory,  ideation,  etc.,  the  popular  concept  of  degrees  of  intelli¬ 
gence  is,  therefore,  seen  to  be  in  terms  of  a  natural  analysis  of 
mind,  stated  as  types  of  activity. 

2.  The  popular,  but  contradictory,  conception  that  pupils  con¬ 
sidered  dull  because  they  fail  in  abstract  subjects,  prove 

their  intelligence  by  success  in  concrete  subjects. 

Over  and  over  again,  the  child  who  cannot  learn  arithmetic, 
history,  geography,  etc.,  is  assigned  to  manual  training  or  other 
subjects  in  which  concrete  situations  predominate,  and  succeeds 
in  the  new  field.  To  say,  however,  that  because  of  this  success 
he  proves  his  intelligence,  is  to  go  contrary  to  the  belief  that 
abstract  subjects  are  harder  than  concrete  ones.  Even  to  say 
that  one  who  fails  in  abstract  subjects  and  succeeds  in  concrete 
ones  has  a  different  kind  of  intelligence,  does  not  meet  the 
point.  He  has  also  a  different  degree  of  intelligence.  The  pro¬ 
gress  of  humanity,  all  the  higher  life  of  man,  depends  upon  the 
control  of  the  abstract.  A  civilization  based  mainly  upon  the  con¬ 
crete  would  be  a  civilization  set  back  indefinitely.  A  person  who 
lives  mainly  in  the  concrete  is  a  person  who  has  not  the  intelli¬ 
gence  to  enter  fully  into-  the  life  of  the  race  to  which  he  belongs. 
He  has  some  intelligence,  but  it  is  only  a  limited  intelligence.  He 
lacks  certain  levels  of  ability  which  are  possessed  by  the  mind 
more  capable  of  abstraction. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT  35 

3.  Courses  of  study  in  institutions  for  the  feeble-minded. 

The  predominating  type  of  material  is  perceptual.  Manual 
training,  and  all  of  these  subjects  of  instruction  which  tend  to 
feature  predominantly  the  concrete,  form  the  bulk  of  the  curricu¬ 
lum.  Only  the  most  elementary  abstract  work  is  attempted. 
(Thought  work  used  consistently  as  pre-requisite  to  construc¬ 
tion,  could,  and  often  does,  raise  the  level  of  intelligence  re¬ 
quired  by  manual  training,  and  make  it  a  valuable  study  for  mod¬ 
ern  schools.  Then,  however,  the  feeble-minded  do  not  succeed 
in  it  so  well.) 

4.  Clinical  descriptions  of  typical  feeble-minded  persons. 

These  nearly  always  show  the  tendency  to  arrest  in  the  terri¬ 
tory  of  the  concrete  More  than  that  they  show  that  in  concrete 
work  such  cases  are,  sometimes  and  even  often,  the  equals  or 
even  the  superiors  of  more  intelligent  subjects.  That  this  is  so, 
constitutes  one  of  the  most  significant  facts  confirming  the  theory 
of  intelligence  herein  advocated,  since  it  shows  that  on  the  per¬ 
ception  (concrete)  level,  high  and  low  intelligence  are  much 
closer  together  than  they  are  on  the  more  abstract  levels.  Below 
is  Doll’s  account  of  a  typical  feeble-minded  case.  The  reader  is 
asked  to  note  how  the  concrete  is  emphasized  in  this  case,  both 
in  the  results  of  the  mental  tests,  and  in  the  subject’s  ability  irf 
manual  and  industrial  work. 

Doll:  Clincal  Studies  in  Feeblemindedness,  Badger,  1917, 

pp.  81-89. 

“Donald,  born  4/14/95,  was  first  examined  3/5/10  at  the 
age  of  14.9.  By  Goddard’s  1910  revision  of  the  B-S  scale  his 
mental  age  was  9.6  years.  He  passed  all  the  tests  at  years  VI 
and  VII,  failed  memories  at  VIII  and  at  IX,  passed  months  and 
money  at  X,  and  absurdities  at  XI.  Absolute  retardation 
amounted  to  5.3  years,  relative  retardation,  36  per  cent.  I.  Q. 
was  64,  and  gave  rise  to  a  diagnosis  of  feeblemindedness,  and  a 
classification  of  middle  grade  moron.  .  .  .  Only  extended  and  well 
directed  conversation  makes  one  conscious  of  his  mental  de- 


3< 5 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


ficiency;  then,  a  poverty  of  ideas,  a  lack  of  originality,  limited 
information,  and  vague  comprehension  of  abstract  relations  are 
apparent.  But  these  are  subjective  impressions  of  which  most 
visitors  who  interview  him  seldom  become  aware.  They  stand 
out  more  definitely  and  clearly  under  observation  in  standard 
situations.  ...  A  formal  pedagogical  examination  was  not  made, 
but  school  reports  are  now  available.  These  show  that  he  at¬ 
tended  an  orphan  asylum  school  for  two  years,  but  made  no 
appreciable  progress.  Furthermore,  in  spite  of  the  exceptional 
advantages  offered  by  the  school  department  of  The  Training 
School,  with  its  intensive  and  extensive  individual  teaching,  he 
has  never  been  reported  as  being  able  to  do  better  than  poor 
first-grade  academic  work.  In  music,  and  in  manual  and  indus¬ 
trial  work,  he  came  to  be  one  of  the  ablest  of  all  the  pupils.  In 
particular  he  did  well  as  a  farm  hand  and  learned  to  handle 
machinery,  and  to  work  with  comparatively  little  supervision.  He 
played  well  on  the  bass  horn,  both  band  and  solo  work,  and  al¬ 
though  he  was  somewhat  careless  he  had  the  reputation  of  being, 
under  supervision,  ‘the  finest  industrial  worker  in  the  school’.  .  .  . 
Donald  was  examined  by  the  writer  5/27/15,  using  Goddard’s 
1911  revision  of  the  B-S  scale.  The  result  showed  a  mental  age 
of  9.6,  which  was  identical  with  the  first  and  four  succeeding 
examinations  by  different  examiners.  In  these  repeated  tests  he 
showed  some  losses  and  some  compensating  gains  over  the  earlier 
tests  but  the  gross  results  have  always  been  identical.  He  passed 
all  tests  up  to  year  IX.  At  X  he  failed  to  make  change,  saying 
that  three  cents  from  twenty  gives  sixteen,  seven  from  twenty- 
five  cents  gives  seventeen,  and  six  from  twenty  gives  eighteen, 
with  the  actual  money  before  him.  As  an  independent  member 
of  society  he  would  be  dependent  upon  the  honesty  of  merchants 
or  the  kindly  financial  assistance  of  friends.  At  year  X  he  ex¬ 
hibited  only  hazy  knowledge  of  the  pieces  of  money  above  one 
dollar  (although  he  had  had  ample  opportunity  to  know  money 
values),  failed  in  the  abstract  comprehension  tests,  and  in  con¬ 
structing  a  sentence.  At  year  1 1  he  succeeded  with  the  rhymes, 
but  missed  all  the  other  tests  of  that  year.  At  twelve  he  passed 
only  the  suggestion  test,  and  that  in  a  manner  to  merit  discount 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


37 


on  the  basis  of  previous  experience  and  memory.  His  failure  in 
these  tests  could  not  be  said  to  be  due  to  lack  of  scholastic  or 
other  training,  for  he  had  been  pressed  to  learn  all  that  his  men¬ 
tal  ability  enabled  him  to  assimilate.  .  .  .  Thus  all  experience  and 
observation  with  Donald  confirm  the  diagnosis  made  in  1910. 
At  the  end  of  five  years  of  intensive  training  in  all  fields  of  learn¬ 
ing  his  mental  capacity  is  the  same  as  at  the  first  examination. 
This  case  is  typical  of  the  milder  forms  of  high-grade  defect 
frequently  met  with  in  institutional  experience.” 

5.  Evidence  drawn  from  the  construction  and  the  application 

of  certain  intelligence  tests. 

The  evidence  appealed  to  here  will  be  that  which  shows  that 
the  power  of  the  so-called  “performance”  material  to  differen¬ 
tiate  mental  age  tends  to  decrease  above  the  age  of  about  eight 
years,  and  to  reach  its  limit  about  the  age  of  twelve  years.  By 
“performance”  material  is  meant  those  tests  which  utilize  con¬ 
crete  material  and  appeal  mainly  to  sensation  and  perception. 
Form-boards,  picture  puzzles,  etc.,  are  typical  examples,  although 
the  variation  in  the  field  is  practically  unlimited. 

A.  ILLUSTRATION  FROM  THE  BINET  TESTS.* 

Most  of  the  tests  in  the  early  years  are  either  perceptual  as  in 
III ( 1 ) ,  111(2),  111(3),  IV(i),  IV (2) ,  etc.,  or  they  are  repro¬ 
ductive  of  something  which  has  been  picked  up  through  the  ex¬ 
perience  of  much  repetition  and  reproduced  from  memory.  Ex¬ 
amples  of  the  latter  are  III (4),  III (5),  etc.  But  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  such  material  decreases  upward  through  the  years, 
more  abstract  material  is  added,  and  more  immediate  solution 
of  new  problems  is  called  for.  By  the  age  of  ten  the  concrete 
material  is  practically  gone  except  for  X(3)  (designs),  and 
X(A1.3)  (Healy-Fernald  Puzzle  A)  ;  and  the  problem  with  the 
designs  draws  heavily  upon  image  states  as  well  as  upon  percep¬ 
tual  states.  It  is  true  that  in  year  XII  one  finds  the  Ball  and 
Field  problem  which  might  be  classed  as  a  performance  test;  but 
the  scoring  in  this  year  requires  “superior  plan”,  which  means 

*Terman,  The  Measurement  of  Intelligence,  Houghton-Mifflin  Co.,  1916. 


38 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


that  a  thoroughly  logical  and  complete  abstract  conception  must 
precede  the  performance. 

B.  ILLUSTRATION  FROM  THE  DE  SANCTIS  TESTS. f 

These  tests  constitute  a  graded  series.  Assuming  that  the 
correct  materials  are  present,  a  rough  notion  of  the  procedure 
can  be  obtained  from  the  following: 

1.  Give  me  a  ball. 

2.  Which  is  the  ball  you  gave  me? 

3.  Do  you  see  this  block  of  wood?  Pick  out  all  the  blocks 
like  this  from  the  pile  on  the  table. 

4.  Do  you  see  this  block?  (a  cube).  Point  out  a  figure  on 
the  form  chart  that  looks  like  it.  Take  this  pencil  (or  pointer) 
and  point  out  all  the  squares  on  the  chart  as  fast  as  possible 
without  missing  any,  taking  the  figures  line  by  line. 

5.  Here  are  some  more  blocks  like  those  you  have  pointed 
out  on  the  chart.  Look  at  them  carefully  and  tell  me  (a)  how 
many  there  are,  (b)  which  is  the  largest,  (c)  which  is  the  far¬ 
thest  away  from  you? 

6.  Do  large  objects  weigh  more  or  less  than  small  objects? 
Why  does  a  small  object  sometimes  weigh  more  than  a  large 
one?  Do  distant  objects  appear  larger  or  smaller  than  near 
objects?  Do  they  only  seem  smaller  or  are  they  really  smaller? 

Determination  of  the  degree  of  mental  deficiency  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  tests. 

1.  If  the  subject  does  not  pass  the  second  test  the  mental  de¬ 
ficiency  may  be  considered  of  a  high  degree. 

2.  If  the  subject  cannot  go  beyond  the  fourth  test,  or  if  he 
makes  many  mistakes  or  is  very  uncertain  in  the  fifth,  the  mental 
deficiency  may  be  considered  of  a  medium  grade. 

3.  If  the  subject  succeeds  in  five  tests  but  finds  the  sixth  diffi¬ 
cult,  the  mental  deficiency  may  be  considered  of  a  slight  amount. 

4.  Finally,  if  the  sixth  test  is  completed  without  mistakes,  the 
subject  may  be  said  to  present  no  mental  deficiency. 

f  De  Sanctis,  Mental  Development,  etc.,  Journal  of  Educational  Psychol¬ 
ogy,  2,  1911. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


39 


Note  (i)  how  the  work  in  this  series  begins  on  the  perceptual 
level  in  very  uncomplicated  form;  (2)  how  the  perceptual  is 
gradually  complicated;  and  (3)  how  the  perceptual  gradually 
gives  way  to  the  symbolic;  and  (4)  how  finally,  in  the  directions 
for  determining  the  degree  of  mental  deficiency,  the  decision  rests 
absolutely  upon  the  ability  to  climb  this  ladder  from  the  percep¬ 
tual  to  the  symbolic. 

C.  ILLUSTRATIONS  FROM  MATERIAL  UTILIZED  BY  PINTNER  AND 
PATTERSON  IN  “a  SCALE  OF  PERFORMANCE  TESTS” 

(APPLETON  ’ll). 

Examination  of  these  graphs  makes  it  clear  at  once  that  be¬ 
tween  five  or  six  years,  and  nine  and  ten  years,  mental  ages  are 
fairly  well,  and  in  many  cases  very  well,  discriminated ;  but  about 
ten  the  curves  show  a  growing  tendency  to  flatten  out  and  to 
continue  upon  a  plateau.  By  the  age  of  twelve  this  tendency  has 
gained  such  power  that  the  graphs  show  little  differentiation 
above  that  point,  and  where  differentiation  is  shown  by  the 
graphs  in  years  thirteen  or  fourteen,  the  experience  of  at  least 
some  of  the  users  of  the  tests  has  been  that  results  are  not  likely 
to  be  very  reliable  in  those  areas. 

There  is  at  least  one  exception,  among  the  graphs,  to  the  con¬ 
clusion  just  reached.  The  reference  is  to  the  Knox  Cube  Test 
(Graph  27).  This  test  shows  better  differentiation  which  may  be 
referred  to  the  fact  that  the  discerning  and  holding  in  mind  for 
repetition,  of  the  increasingly  complex  series  of  responses,  utilizes 
more  than  do  the  other  tests  powers  which  are  superior  to  mere 
sensation  or  perception. 

When  one  looks  at  the  amazingly  uniform  tendency  of  per¬ 
formance  tests  to  reach  the  limit  of  their  differentiating  power 
at  a  point  roughly  shown  in  the  graphs,  one  must  feel  that  it  is 
probably  more  than  a  coincidence  that  a  mental  age  of  ten  or 
twelve  for  adults  has  usually  been  chosen  by  intelligence  experts 
as  the  dividing  line  between  normality  and  feeblemindedness.  It 
seems  probable  that  performance  test  standarizations  have,  per¬ 
haps  unwittingly,  established  the  approximate  point  where  ab¬ 
straction  must  gain  the  ascendency,  or  subnormality  become  ap¬ 
parent. 


Graphs  from  “A  Scale  of  Performance  Tests,”  Pintner  and  Patterson 
(Appleton,  1917).  The  numbering  follows  the  original  text. 


/V  /ir 


Graphs  from  “A  Scale  of  Performance  Tests/'  Pintner  and  Patterson 
(Appleton,,  1917).  The  numbering  follows  the  original  text. 


Graphs  from  “A  Scale  of  Performance  Tests/''  Pintner  and  Patterson 
(Appleton,,  1917).  The  numbering  follows  the  original  text. 


44 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Graphs  from  “A  Scale  of  Performance  Tests,"  Pintner  and  Patterson 
(Appleton,  1917).  The  numbering  follows  the  original  text. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


45 


Graphs  from  “A  Scale  of  Performance  Tests/'’  Pintner  and  Patterson 
(Appleton,  1917).  The  numbering  follows  the  original  text. 


4 6  JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 

Graphs  from  “A  Scale  of  Performance  Tests/'  Pintner  and  Patterson 
(Appleton,  1917).  The  numbering  follows  the  original  text. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


47 


Graphs  from  “A  Scale  of  Performance  Tests/'  Pintner  and  Patterson 
(Appleton,  1917).  The  numbering  follows  the  original  text. 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


48 

Graphs  from  “A  Scale  of  Performance  Tests  "  Pintner  and  Patterson 
(Appleton,  1917)*  The  numbering  follows  the  original  text. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


49 


Graphs  from  “A  Scale  of  Performance  Tests/'  Pintner  and  Patterson 
(Appleton,  1917).  The  numbering  follows  the  original  text. 


50 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Graphs  from  “A  Scale  of  Performance  Tests/'  Pintner  and  Patterson 
(Appleton,  1917).  The  numbering  follows  the  original  text. 


hJu-mb&h 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT  51 

D.  ILLUSTRATION  FROM  PERFORMANCE  TEST  MATERIAL 

DEVELOPED  BY  HEALY. 

The  Healy  performance  tests  show  tendencies  similar  to  the 
other  tests  of  the  same  type.  However,  the  main  use  made  of 
Healy’s  work  here  will  be  as  a  basis  for  discussion  of  the  relative 
failure  of  adults  with  performance  material,  and  the  signifi¬ 
cance  of  this  fact  to  the  theory  of  intelligence  levels.  The  fol¬ 
lowing  quotation,  beginning  on  page  200  of  the  monograph,  “A 
Pictorial  Completion  Test”,*  is  in  point: 

“The  older  individual  is  prone  to  meet  a  simple  situation  with 
the  idea  that  there  must  be  something  back  of  it.  .  .  .  The  ‘might 
be’  of  the  adult  with  his  greater  stock  of  ideas  is  very  rarely 
heard  from  the  child.  ...  Of  course  the  chicken  ‘might  be’ 
jumping  at  the  cat,  or  at  the  bird  in  the  cage.  The  greater  ex¬ 
perience  of  adults  led  them  to  perceive  many  more  possibilities 
in  the  situation  than  the  child  sees.  It  may  be  this,  rather  than 
any  conscious  attempt  at  criticism  which  leads  the  adult  to  go 
much  farther  than  taking  the  picture  at  its  barest  face  values.” 

This  all  means  that  the  normal  adult  is  inclined  to  inject  ab¬ 
straction  into  the  situation,  and  to  refuse  to  deal  exclusively  with 
the  simple  concrete  which  is  before  him.  He  puts  in  much  more 
than  he  sees.  He  does  poorer  work  on  the  tests  because  his  mind 
really  works  better.  If  he  cannot  put  in  the  extra  abstraction,  he 
is  not  a  normal  adult,  his  mind  is  retarded  on  the  level  of  the 
concrete,  the  predominating  level  of  the  child-mind.  Below  is 
a  table  based  upon  examination  of  95  college  people  with  the 
Healy  Picture  Completion  Test. 

THE  WELLESLEY  DATA*}* 


I.  Cases  with  no  errors 

Wellesley  26% 

Private  School  30% 

Delinquents  (B  Group)  33% 

Delinquents  (A  Group)  40% 


^Psychological  Review,  XXI,  3. 
fPsychological  Review,  XXI,  3. 


5  2 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


II.  Percentage  of  total  errors  to  pieces  placed 


Wellesley  21.7% 

Private  School  15.0% 

Delinquents  (B  Group)  10.0% 

Delinquents  (A  Group)  6.0% 

III.  Percentage  of  total  errors  illogical 

Wellesley  64.0% 

Private  School  50.0% 

Delinquents  (B  Group)  40.0% 

Delinquents  (A  Group)  33.0% 


The  evidence  of  poorer  work  on  the  part  of  the  college  students 
in  the  strictly  perceptual  part  of  the  problem  is  here  very  evi¬ 
dent.  If  the  suggested  reason  for  it  is  the  true  one,  however,  the 
poor  showing  is  a  recommendation  rather  than  otherwise.  Even 
the  high  per  cent  of  illogical  error  as  judged  in  perceptual  terms, 
becomes  logical  when  judged  in  abstract  terms,  and  therefore  be¬ 
comes  a  recommendation  rather  than  a  fault.  These  data,  there¬ 
fore,  are  understandable  on  the  theory  that  the  one  who  can  get 
the  most  out  of  a  perceptual  test  is  the  one  who  has  not  developed 
beyond  the  perceptual  level.  He  does  not  have  the  great  stock  of 
abstract  ideas  to  bother  him,  and  consequently  he  saves  time  by 
direct  and  naive  solution  of  the  concrete  situation.  Perhaps  the 
best  way  to  make  a  performance  test  indicate  truly  the  intelli¬ 
gence  of  the  adult  "would  be  so  to  regulate  it  that  the  number  of 
original,  but  proved  logical,  solutions  would  determine  the  score. 
Then  the  adult  would  not  be  penalized  for  his  higher  type  of  intel¬ 
ligence  as  he  now  is  in  such  tests.  (Pintner  and  Patterson,  work¬ 
ing  with  the  Knox  tests  with  children,  were  obliged  to  set  higher 
limits  of  achievement  and  time  than  those  used  by  Knox  with 
adults.) — See  discussion  at  several  points  in  “A  Scale  of  Per¬ 
formance  Tests”,  by  Pintner  and  Patterson.  (Appleton,  1917.) 

E.  ILLUSTRATIONS  FROM  STUDIES  DIRECTED  TOWARD  THE 
DETERMINATION  OF  THE  TYPE  OF  MENTAL  FUNCTION 
POSSESSED  BY  THE  FEEBLEMINDED. 

A  very  good  illustration  is  found  in  the  excellent  study  by 
Cyrus  D.  Mead,  Ph.D.,  Teachers’  College  Contribution  to  Edu- 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT  53 

cation,  No.  76,  on  “The  Relations  of  General  Intelligence  to  Cer¬ 
tain  Mental  and  Physical  Traits".  The  reader  is  referred  to  Dr. 
Mead’s  monograph  for  the  conclusive  data  back  of  the  assertions 
made  in  the  following  quotation  concerning  the  relative  percep¬ 
tual  and  memory  powers  of  the  feebleminded  and  the  normal 
child. 

Page  78,  line  3 :  “As  a  practical  suggestion  from  the  above 
data,  and  with  a  firmer  conviction  after  six  years  of  experience  in 
the  education  of  hundreds  of  mentally  defective  children,  the  au¬ 
thor  would  offer  the  point  that  in  the  ability  to  perceive  and  to 
memorize  defective  children  do  better  than  in  any  other  of  the 
purely  mental  traits.  It  makes  less  difference  with  these  children 
whether  the  material  has  relationship  than  it  does  with  normal 
children.  Memory  seems  to  be  a  characteristic  in  itself,  native 
perhaps.  It  is  a  common  occurrence  to  have  defective  children 
call  their  teacher’s  attention  to  any  slight  change  in  the  latter’s 
dress.  The  powers  of  perception  and  memory  then  should  be 
used  to  the  utmost  in  the  education  of  these  children.  The  most 
practical  contribution  made  by  Miss  Norsworthy  in  her  study  is 
quoted:  ‘To  speak  of  (defectives)  them  as  being  equally  defi¬ 
cient  in  all  the  mental  powers  is  false.  .  .  .  From  the  point  of  view 
of  the  psychologist  and  the  educator  it  is  fully  as  important  to 
know  that  the  (defective’s)  perceptive  powers  are  almost  two 
and  a  half  times  as  strong  and  accurate  as  his  intellectual  powers, 
and  almost  half  as  strong  again  as  is  his  powers  of  memory,  as 
to  know  that  he  is  weaker  than  the  ordinary  child  in  all  of  these 
particulars.’  ” 

Three  things  here  are  evident :  ( 1 )  that  defective  children  do 

not  possess  the  higher  mental  functions  to  the  degree  that  these 
functions  are  possessed  by  normal  children;  (2)  that  they  possess 
memory  and  perception  to  a  very  considerable  degree;  and  (3) 
that  they  tend  to  fail  in  the  power  to  note  relationships  between 
the  memories  and  percepts  which  they  really  possess. 

Another  illustration  may  be  drawn  from  the  pamphlet  by  Knox 
on  “Alien  Mental  Defectives”  (Stoelting,  Chicago).  In  this 
pamphlet  is  a  study  entitled,  “A  Comparative  Study  of  the 
Imaginative  Power  in  Mental  Defectives”.  Again  the  reader  is 
referred  to  the  article  itself  for  the  data  which  are  too  detailed  to 


54 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


reproduce  here;  but  the  conclusions  are  significant.  (The  test 
was  the  common  “Ink  Blot”  test.)  Dr.  Knox  says: 

“(i)  It  is  apparent  from  a  study  of  the  tables  that  there  are 
no  Jules  Vernes  among  the  twenty-five  defectives,  at  least,  and, 
as  compared  to  the  twenty-five  normals,  there  is  very  little  abil¬ 
ity  to  draw  mental  pictures  from  commonplace  or  amorphous  ob¬ 
jects.  (2)  The  associations  among  the  defectives  are  for  the 
most  part  not  logical.  ...  (4)  The  reaction-time  was  nearly  twice 
as  long  in  the  defectives  as  in  the  normals.  ...  (5)  Tests  of 
imagination  and  the  average  reaction-time  to  questions  may  be 
valuable  points  to  consider  when  dealing  with  mental  defectives 
from  a  diagnostic  standpoint.” 

This  quotation,  and  its  supporting  data,  reinforce  the  point  of 
the  previous  quotation  that  the  imaging  ability  of  the  feeblemind¬ 
ed  is  less  than  their  perceptive  ability,  and  that  their  logic,  or 
judgment,  is  the  least  of  all  of  their  abilities, 

F.  ILLUSTRATIONS  FROM  SUCCESS  AND  FAILURE  IN  ABSTRACT 
AND  CONCRETE  SUBJECTS  OF  INSTRUCTION. 

In  an  article  by  Cummins  in  “The  Journal  of  Educational 
Psychology”,  October,  1919,  there  appears  a  comparison  of 
“bright”  and  “slow”  pupils.  In  the  process  of  this  study  there 
is  developed  the  following  with  relation  to  the  relative  difficulty 
of  studies : 

“By  dividing  the  number  of  cases  in  which  high  marks  were 
received,  by  the  number  of  cases  in  which  low  marks  were  re¬ 
ceived,  the  ratios  thus  obtained  give  us  a  fair  picture  of  the  rela¬ 
tive  difficulty  of  each  subject.  Arranging  the  subjects  in  the  or¬ 
der  of  these  ratios  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  we  have  the  fol¬ 


lowing  array : 

Physical  Training . 14-67 

Arts  (Domestic  and  Fine) .  5.25 

Shop  (Manual  Training,  etc.)  . 3.00 

English  and  History .  1.56 

Modern  Language . 1.42 

Science .  .92 

Ancient  Language .  .46 

Mathematics  .  .19 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT  55 

Thus  there  appears  an  almost  perfect  gradation  all  the  way 
from  the  subject  which  is  almost  wholly  a  matter  of  ideo-motor 
coordination,  to  the  subject  which  involves  the  largest  amount  of 
abstract  thinking.  The  only  possible  exception  is  that  of  an¬ 
cient  language  which  should  no  doubt  have  occurred  in  the  array 
following  the  modern  languages.” 

It  is  true  that,  since  this  relationship  of  studies  is  based  upon 
marks  received,  the  reason  for  the  greater  number  of  high  marks 
received  in  physical  training,  etc,,  and  the  frequency  of  low 
marks  in  mathematics,  etc.,  may  have  been  the  different  marking 
standards  of  different  teachers.  But  it  is  improbable  that  the 
sequence  in  the  array  from  concrete  to  abstract  would  have  been 
anywhere  nearly  so  perfect  unless  it  was  at  least  somewhat  deter- 
minded  by  the  real  character  of  the  subjects  as  well  as  by  the  per¬ 
sonal  equation  of  the  person  giving  the  marks.  The  conclusion 
from  the  data  presented  that  abstract  studies  are  relatively  harder 
(require  more  intelligence)  is  a  relatively  safe  one. 

Other  illustrations  of  this  point  might  easily  be  produced. 
Some  material  taken  from  “The  Illinois  Survey”  (Published 
1917  by  the  Illinois  State  Teachers’  Association),  will  suffice. 

Table  VIII — Sec.  10 

Median  Proportion  of  Pupils  in  Each  Grade,  Page  124,  Reported  as  “Finding 

Difficulty  in  Completing  Required  Work”. 

No.  of  Teachers  Median  Proportion  of 


Grade  Reporting  Pupils  “Finding  Difficulty”. 

I  .  192  6%-io% 

II  .  124  6%-io% 

III  .  102  n%-i5% 

IV  .  1 16  6%-io% 

V  .  1 12  6%-io% 

VI  .  1 14  6%-io% 

VII  .  hi  6%-io% 

VIII  .  109  6%-io% 


Note. — Because  of  certain  reasons  the  extra  percentage  in  grade  III  is  not 
considered  especially  significant. 

In  Terman’s  “The  Measurement  of  Intelligence”,  p.  78,  there 
is  a  table  showing  that  in  an  unselected  group  of  persons  of  a 
reasonably  large  number,  the  intelligence  quotients  of  the  lowest 
ten  per  cent  will  be  85  or  below.  It  is  reasonably  safe  to  sup¬ 
pose  that  the  children  under  consideration  by  these  Illinois  teach- 


56 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


ers  represented  such  an  unselected  group,  and  that  those  reported 
as  “finding  difficulty”  were  largely  those  of  approximately  85 
I.  Q.  or  below,  since  the  6  per  cent  to  10  per  cent  reported  would 
be  constituted  of  just  about  the  low  I.  Q.’s  in  question.  The  fol¬ 
lowing  table  from  the  same  survey  gives  further  light  upon  the 
matter. 


Table  IX — Sec.  i,  Page  125 

Subjects  in  Which  Pupils  Find  it  Difficult  to  Complete  the  Required  Work. 


34.60%  of  teachers  reporting 
18.15%  of  teachers  reporting 
17.46%  of  teachers  reporting 
17.26%  of  teachers  reporting 
13.84%  of  teachers  reporting 
12.79%  of  teachers  reporting 
10.70%  of  teachers  reporting 


name 

reading 

name 

arithmetic 

name 

language 

name 

geography 

name 

spelling 

name 

grammar 

name 

history 

On  page  143  of  the  same  book  is  found  the  following: 

“The  subjects  in  which  the  greatest  difficulty  is  experienced, 
varies  from  grade  to  grade.  In  general,  arithmetic  may  be 
looked  upon  as  the  most  difficult  subject  as  measured  by  the 
standard  represented  in  Table  IX  (teachers’  judgments),  and  the 
difficulty  of  this  subject  is  sustained  throughout  the  grades,  from 
the  third  to  the  eighth.” 

It  is  clear  that  these  teachers  found  the  poorest  10  per  cent  of 
the  children  (almost  certainly  children  of  low  I.  Q.)  having 
trouble  with  the  abstract  subjects.  Not  a  single  one  of  the  more 
perceptual  subjects  is  mentioned.  Again  the  result  might  be  due 
to  excessive  requirements  in  the  subjects  named,  and  the  light 
requirements  in  the  other  subjects;  but  the  chances  are  all  in 
favor  of  the  assumption  that  the  type  of  subject,  abstract  or 
concrete,  is  at  least  partially  the  determining  factor.  Another 
table  from  the  same  survey  is  interesting  in  this  connection. 

Something  of  the  same  progression  from  concrete  to  abstract 
is  seen  in  Table  XVII.  The  assumption  is  possibly  a  fair  one  that 
teachers  would,  in  matters  of  promotion,  disregard  those  sub¬ 
jects  which  they  do  not  consider  to  be  very  good  tests  of  a  child’s 
general  ability. 

In  this  same  survey  there  is  a  study  of  “Some  Exceptional 
High  School  Pupils  in  Illinois”  by  E.  E.  Jones.  He  shows  that 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


57 


Table  XVII — Page  140 

Subjects  Disregarded  in  Determining  Promotion. 


Subject 

Music  . 

Drawing  . 

Writing  . 

Physiology  and  Hygiene 

Manual  Training  . 

Physical  Training  . 

Spelling  . 

Arithmetic  . 

Reading  . 

History  . 

Language  . 

Geography  . 

Grammar  . 


Proportion  of 
1407  Teachers  Reporting 
Subject  as  Disregarded 

67.3 

65.4 
31-4 
10.2 

9.1 
9-1 

8.1 
2.8 

2.8 
2.7 
2.0 

1.9 
9-5 


these  pupils  did  all  round  good  work  in  the  grades  and  did  not 
drift  toward  any  particular  line  of  work.  They  were  not  pushed 
early  into  manual  training  or  other  hand  work.  They  had  gen¬ 
eral  ability;  and  this  general  ability  showed  in  the  high  school 
as  well  as  in  the  grades.  The  pupils  tended  to  be  good  in  every¬ 
thing  that  they  undertook.  And  yet  the  author  says  that  he 
found  no  reason  why  these  persons  excelled.  Is  it  not  clear  that 
they  excelled  because  they  had  good  general  endowment — in 
ability  to  deal  with  the  abstract  as  well  as  in  ability  to  deal  with 
the  concrete  ? 


CHAPTER  V 


The  Fundamental  Nature  of  Intentional  Adaptation 

(Continued). 

I.  Original  quantitative  studies. 
i.  In  upper  school  grades. 

Attempts  made  by  the  writer  to  test  the  hypothesis  of  levels 
in  intentionally  controlled  intelligence  have  been  guided  by  the 
conclusion  that  if  the  theory  in  question  is  true,  then  the  achieve¬ 
ment  of  high  and  low  intelligence  should  be  nearest  together  on 
the  perceptual  level  where  all  tend  to  be  more  equally  endowed, 
and  farthest  apart  on  the  symbol  level,  upon  which  low  intelli¬ 
gence  finds  it  hard  to  act  at  all.  (To  leave  out  the  image  level 
accents  the  contrast  of  the  extremes.) 

In  this  upper  grade  study  the  first  step  in  quantitative  deter¬ 
mination  was  that  of  ascertaining  the  general  intelligence  of  a 
chosen  group  so  that  the  result  could  be  used  as  a  criterion  for 
checking  further  work.  For  this  purpose  the  Binet-Simon  tests 
were  chosen  as  the  best  available  instrument.  It  is  true  that 
these  tests  themselves  show  a  gradation  from  perceptual  material 
to  symbol  material,  and  that,  at  first  glance,  it  might  seem  that 
to  use  them  as  a  criterion  in  attempts  to  prove  the  existence  of 
levels  based  upon  the  same  principle,  would  be  to  reason  in  a 
circle.  On  the  contrary,  the  exact  reverse  is  the  case.  When  the 
authors  devised  these  tests  they  made  use  of  a  purely  trial  and 
error  method.  They  experimented  with  very  numerous  “stunts” 
of  all  descriptions  and  the  separate  tests  really  located  them¬ 
selves.  They  fell  into  certain  relative  positions  and  relationships 
because  as  a  result  of  their  fundamental  nature  they  could  oc¬ 
cupy  no  other  positions  and  relationships.  After  they  had  as¬ 
sumed  those  relationships,  and  so  had  become  a  scale  for  the 
measurement  of  intelligence,  that  scale  was  checked  by  criteria 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT  59 

of  all  kinds,  such  as  estimates  of  intelligence,  school  work,  school 
progress,  experience  in  life,  etc.,  etc. ;  and  it  is  now  generally 
admitted  to  be  the  best  instrument  for  getting  at  an  approxima¬ 
tion  to  exact  quantitative  measurement  of  intelligence.  If  one 
accepts  the  scale  as  it  is  and  examines  it  with  the  purpose  of  dis¬ 
covering  the  factor  responsible  for  the  self-arrangement  of  the 
individual  tests,  one  is  forced  to  conclude  that  this  responsible 
factor  lies  in  differences  in  amounts  of  perceptual  and  symbolic 
material  utilized  at  various  levels.  Thus  these  tests  themselves 
supply  a  certain  amount  of  confirmation  of  the  hypothesis  for 
which  proof  is  sought,  and  they  have  already  been  so  cited. 

But  one  can  go  farther.  For  example,  if  one  makes  brick 
and  gets  an  especially  excellent  quality,  he  may  examine  all  con¬ 
ditions  of  the  process  and  try  to  decide  upon  the  factor  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  excellence.  Then  he  can  vary  that  factor,  compare 
with  the  original  results,  and  so  test  his  opinion  as  to  the  factor’s 
responsibility  for  the  excellence.  The  intention  has  been  similar 
in  the  present  instance.  The  start  is  made  on  the  theory  of  the 
responsibility  of  the  proportions  of  the  perceptual  and  symbol 
materials,  those  proportions  are  varied,  and  the  results  are  ex¬ 
amined  for  light  upon  the  theory. 

An  abbreviated  form  of  the  Binet-Simon  tests  (the  starred 
tests  of  the  Stanford  Revision)  was  given  to  364  children  in 
grades  four  to  eight,  inclusive,  of  a  normal  training  school. 
Table  I  shows  the  raw  data  of  this  study. 


Table  I 

Original  Data:  Abbreviated  Binet  and  Teachers’  Estimates  of  Intelligence. 


Case 

Born 

Eighth  Grade. 
Tested 

M.A. 

1st  Est. 

2nd  Est 

1 

10/18/03 

3/  4/i9 

14-  2.5 

5 

4 

2 

12/24/04 

2/25/19 

14-  7-5 

4 

4 

3 

11/16/04 

2/25/19 

15-  4-5 

4 

4 

4 

12/29/05 

2/28/19 

16-  0 

4 

4 

5 

1/26/05 

2/26/19 

1 7-  4.5 

3 

3 

6 

9/14/03 

2/25/19 

15-10.5 

3 

3 

7 

10/17/02 

3/  4/i9 

13-  0 

6 

5 

8 

1 2/  4/03 

3/  4/i9 

13-  9-5 

6 

5 

9 

5/  6/05 

2/26/19 

15-  2 

4 

3 

10 

8/23/04 

2/25/19 

16-  7-5 

4 

3 

11 

6/13/03 

2/27/19 

14-  8 

4 

5 

12 

9/  9/03 

2/26/19 

15-  9-5 

5 

4 

13 

1 1/25/03 

3/  4/i9 

1 2-  7-5 

6 

5 

6o  JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  I  (Continued) 


Case 

Born 

Eighth  Grade 
Tested 

M.A. 

1st  Est. 

2nd  Est. 

14 

1/11/05 

2/26/19 

15-10.5 

1 

3 

15 

6/28/01 

3/  4/i9 

11-  4 

6 

6 

16 

3/  1/04 

2/28/19 

13-  9-5 

4 

4 

1 7 

5/19/05 

2/27/19 

13-  7.5 

3 

4 

18 

3/  6/04 

2/28/19 

15-  4-5 

3 

4 

19 

9/17/03 

2/27/19 

13-  7-5 

4 

4 

20 

4/  9/03 

2/25/19 

12-  8 

5 

5 

21 

8/  2/02 

3/  4/i9 

13-  7 

6 

5 

22 

7/17/05 

2/28/19 

15-  5-5 

4 

4 

23 

3/30/05 

2/26/19 

14-  5 

4 

4 

24 

11/16/04 

3/  4/i9 

13-  2 

4 

5 

25 

10/28/01 

3/  4/i9 

11-  4-5 

5 

6 

26 

8/21/03 

2/28/19 

12-  6 

5 

5 

27 

3/  9/03 

3/  4/i9 

12-  8 

6 

5 

28 

3/18/05 

2/25/19 

13-  1.5 

3 

4 

29 

9/18/05 

2/26/19 

16-  0 

1 

I 

30 

10/  1/03 

2/27/19 

I3-H.5 

4 

4 

3i 

5/14/05 

2/26/19 

14-  5 

4 

4 

32 

5/18/03 

3/  4/i9 

12-  7-5 

6 

6 

33 

7/20/04 

2/28/19 

13-  9 

4 

4 

34 

11/24/04 

3/  4/i9 

16-  7-5 

3 

3 

35 

1 2/  4/02 

2/26/19 

13-  1-5 

4 

4 

36 

4/  2/02 

3/  4/i9 

13-  3  5 

7 

7 

37 

8/29/04 

3/  4/i9 

14-  2 

4 

4 

38 

2/18/06 

2/25/19 

15-  6 

1 

1 

39 

2/ 1 2/0 1 

3/  4/i9 

15-  3 

5 

6 

40 

10/  2/04 

3/  4/i9 

14-  3 

5 

5 

4i 

11/  8/05 

3/  4/i9 

15-  3 

4 

4 

42 

1/29/06 

3/  4/i9 

14-  4-5 

4 

4 

43 

11/  2/00 

4/  9/i9 

13-  3-5 

6 

6 

44 

2/  5/06 

3/  4/i9 

16-10.5 

4 

3 

45 

11/  2/04 

3/  4/i9 

14-  9 

3 

3 

46 

6/16/06 

3/  4/i9 

18-  1.5 

2 

1 

47 

1 / 19/05 

3/  4/i9 

16-  7-5 

3 

4 

48 

6/  8/04 

3/  4/i9 

15-  9-5 

4 

4 

49 

2/  8/06 

3/  4/i9 

15-  4-5 

4 

4 

50 

8/  2/04 

3/  4/i9 

14-  3 

4 

3 

5i 

12/25/02 

3/  3/i9 

15-  8 

6 

6 

52 

12/15/04 

3/  4/i9 

13-  2 

5 

4 

53 

7/1 1/05 

3/  3/i9 

14-  7-5 

4 

4 

54 

3/22/05 

3/  4/i9 

14-  1.5 

6 

6 

55 

8/14/03 

3/  4/i9 

16-10.5 

4 

4 

56 

5/29/04 

3/  4/i9 

13-  8.5 

6 

6 

57 

2/15/07 

3/  4/i9 

16-  1.5 

2 

2 

58 

10/13/05 

3/  4/i9 

17-  4-5 

2 

2 

59 

10/  6/05 

3/  4/i9 

13-n 

5 

5 

60 

8/  4/03 

3/  4/i9 

15-  1-5 

5 

5 

61 

12/12/02 

3/  4/i9 

14-  6 

6 

6 

62 

1 2/  9/03 

3/  4/i9 

13-  9-5 

5 

5 

63 

1 1/23/02 

3/  4/i9 

12-  8.5 

6 

6 

64 

3/  2/05 

3/  4/i9 

12-  6 

4 

4 

65 

5/20/05 

3/  4/i9 

14-  7-5 

4 

4 

66 

12723705 

3/  4/i9 

12-  8.5 

4 

4 

67 

2/ 22/04 

3/  4/i9 

15-  6 

4 

4 

68 

6/24/07 

3/  4/i9 

15-  4-5 

4 

4 

Case 

69 

70 

7 1 

72 

73 

74 

I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

3i 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

4i 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT  61 


Table  I  (Continued) 
Eighth  Grade 


Born 

Tested 

M.A. 

1st  Est. 

2nd  Est. 

11/  6/04 

3/  3/i9 

14-  4-5 

4 

4 

5/22/04 

3/  4/i9 

16-  0 

5 

5 

10/  4/04 

3/  4/i9 

11-  8 

5 

5 

2/18/04 

3/  4/i9 

13-  6 

5 

5 

9/15/05 

3/  4/i9 

14-  5 

4 

4 

3/11/06 

3/  4/i9 

Seventh  Grade 

16-  0 

4 

4 

6/  9/05 

3/  4/i9 

16-  0 

4 

4 

9/20/05 

3/  4/i9 

14- 10.5 

4 

4 

3/  7/o6 

3/  4/i9 

15-  9 

3 

2 

1/  1/04 

3/  4/i9 

14-  0.5 

4 

4 

5/13/05 

3/  4/i9 

16-  0 

3 

3 

10/12/02 

3/  4/i9 

14-10 

4 

3 

11/  9/05 

3/  4/i9 

14-  7-5 

3 

3 

11/23/03 

4/11/19 

13-  2 

5 

5 

6/  4/05 

3/  4/i9 

15-  6.5 

3 

3 

7/23/07 

4/11/19 

16-  1.5 

3 

3 

1/20/05 

3/n/i9 

15-  7-5 

4 

5 

1 2/  7/05 

3/  4/i9 

16-  0 

4 

3 

9/24/06 

3/  4/i9 

15-  4-5 

3 

2 

1 2/  8/03 

3/11/19 

14-  3 

5 

5 

12/15/04 

3/  4/19 

14-10.5 

4 

5 

3/  7/05 

3/  4/i9 

14-  7-5 

4 

4 

1 2/  8/05 

3/  4/i9 

18-  9 

2 

2 

2/29/04 

3/  4/i9 

9-  4 

7 

7 

11/  9/04 

3/  4/i9 

13-  3-5 

4 

4 

7/13/04 

3/  4/i9 

16-  0 

5 

5 

8/13/04 

3/11/19 

12-11.5 

4 

4 

1 2/ 16/05 

3/  4/i9 

14-  6.5 

4 

4 

6/17/05 

3/  4/i9 

13-  6.5 

4 

4 

9/29/05 

3/  4/i9 

16-  1.5 

3 

3 

1/22/07 

3/  4/i9 

14-  4-5 

3 

3 

8/20/04 

3/11/19 

15-  7-5 

4 

5 

12/20/05 

3/11/19 

12-  2 

3 

4 

5/31/04 

3/11/19 

14-  1.5 

5 

5 

11/16/03 

3/11/19 

14-  0 

4 

4 

1 2/  3/05 

3/n/i9 

15-  3 

3 

4 

1/12/06 

3/  4/i9 

13-  1.5 

4 

4 

10/22/05 

3/  4/i9 

12-  5-5 

4 

5 

11/26/05 

3/  3/i9 

16-10.5 

3 

4 

10/23/03 

3/11/19 

12-  9 

4 

4 

n/13/05 

3/  4/i9 

14-  3 

4 

4 

3/23/06 

3/  4/i9 

15-  2 

4 

4 

4/15/04 

3/n/i9 

13-  0 

4 

4 

3/12/05 

3/11/19 

12-  2 

5 

6 

6/22/05 

3/n/i9 

15-  0 

4 

6 

9/  2/06 

4/18/19 

12-  0 

4 

4 

3/14/04 

3/11/19 

15-  0 

4 

4 

7/15/05 

3/n/i9 

16-  0 

4 

4 

7/15/05 

3/11/19 

12-  8 

4 

4 

12/20/04 

3/11/19 

12-10 

4 

4 

1 2/  3/06 

3/  4/i9 

15-10.5 

2 

2 

10/  4/05 

3/n/i9 

12-11.5 

4 

4 

6/18/05 

3/11/19 

IO-IO 

4 

4 

62  JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  I  (Continued) 
Seventh  Grade 


Case 

Born 

Tested 

M.A. 

1st  Est. 

2nd  Est. 

48 

6/11/07 

3/11/19 

17-  4-5 

2 

2 

49 

1/  5/06 

3/  4/i9 

12-  0 

4 

4 

50 

12/17/06 

3/  4/i9 

13-n 

2 

2 

5i 

10/20/03 

3/11/19 

11-  4 

6 

5 

52 

3/22/06 

3/  4/i9 

14-  9 

2 

2 

53 

7/20/05 

3/11/19 

13-  6.5 

4 

4 

54 

2/13/05 

3/11/19 

11-  8 

5 

5 

55 

4/20/05 

3/  4/i9 

11-  8 

5 

5 

56 

2/16/07 

3/11/19 

14-  9 

3 

3 

57 

1 2/  8/05 

3/n/i9 

12-  4 

4 

4 

58 

1/11/06 

3/11/19 

14-10 

4 

4 

59 

7/  4/06 

3/  4/i9 

13-  3-5 

3 

2 

60 

6/  7/06 

3/11/19 

15-  4-5 

4 

4 

61 

1 1/25/05 

3/11/19 

15-  0 

4 

4 

62 

6/13/06 

3/11/19 

II-IO 

4 

4 

63 

2/  6/05 

3/11/19 

12-  4 

4 

4 

64 

10/19/05 

3/11/19 

12-  4 

4 

4 

65 

7/29/06 

3/11/19 

16-  3 

4 

4 

66 

4/  3/o6 

3/  4/i9 

14-  3-5 

4 

4 

67 

12/19/07 

3/  4/i9 

13-  7-5 

2 

2 

68 

1/ 13/07 

3/  4/i9 

16-  3 

2 

3 

Sixth  Grade 

1 

8/  6/06 

3/11/19 

12-  4 

4 

6 

2 

7/19/04 

3/11/19 

II-IO 

6 

6 

3 

4/28/04 

3/11/19 

14-  7-5 

5 

4 

4 

6/12/06 

3/27/19 

13-  7-5 

4 

3 

5 

8/  7/06 

3/11/19 

13-  9-5 

5 

4 

6 

7  /7/06 

3/11/19 

12-11.5 

4 

4 

7 

8/17/04 

3/11/19 

12-  4 

4 

4 

8 

1/26/05 

4/11/19 

12-  0 

3 

3 

9 

2/15/06 

3/11/19 

12-  4 

5 

3 

10 

8/  7/07 

4/11/19 

16-  3 

2 

2 

11 

4/  2/03 

3/28/19 

13-  4 

6 

5 

12 

12/23/02 

3/11/19 

12-  0 

6 

7 

13 

9/10/06 

3/11/19 

12-  8 

4 

5 

14 

1/  5/06 

3/11/19 

12-  5 

4 

5 

15 

2/  7/06 

3/11/19 

11-  7 

4 

4 

16 

4/  4/06 

3/11/19 

13-  9-5 

4 

4 

1 7 

1/  4/06 

3/18/19 

13-  0 

5 

5 

18 

2/  1/07 

3/11/19 

11-  0 

5 

5 

19 

12/29/07 

3/11/19 

14-  1-5 

2 

2 

20 

3/  1/06 

3/18/19 

13-  9 

4 

5 

21 

12/15/07 

3/11/19 

11-  6 

4 

5 

22 

1/  5/06 

3/11/19 

15-  7-5 

2 

2 

23 

9/  8/06 

3/11/19 

13-  4 

5 

4 

24 

4/27/08 

3/11/19 

15-  8 

2 

2 

25 

4/24/07 

3/n/i9 

16-  1.5 

2 

2 

26 

11/25/04 

4/14/19 

11-  4 

7 

5 

27 

9/13/05 

3/11/19 

9-  9 

6 

5 

28 

1/  9/05 

3/27/19 

13-11 

3 

3 

29 

5/26/06 

3/27:19 

12-11 

5 

4 

30 

2/28/07 

3/11/ 19 

12-  8 

6 

6 

3i 

2/20/27 

3/11/19 

14-  6 

1 

1 

32 

3/  6/06 

3/25/19 

12-  8.5 

5 

5 

Case 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

5i 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

7i 

72 

73 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


63 


Table  I  (Continued) 
Sixth  Grade 


Born 

Tested 

M.A. 

1st  Est, 

6/  3/06 

3/12/19 

13-  5-5 

3 

8/  8/04 

3/18/19 

12-11 

4 

1/16/07 

3/11/19 

15-  0 

3 

8/25/07 

3/11/19 

15-  4-5 

1 

11/  4/04 

3/24/19 

14-  3 

2 

5/16/06 

3/18/19 

13-n 

5 

9/27/06 

3/18/19 

n-  5 

5 

6/20/05 

3/21/19 

12-  1 

5 

9/27/05 

3/17/19 

14-10 

2 

3/17/06 

3/1V19 

15-10.5 

2 

2/  7/07 

3/11/19 

12-  7-5 

2 

1 / 10/05 

3/11/19 

12-  6 

6 

3/  6/06 

3/24/19 

15-  6 

4 

1/27/07 

3/11/19 

13-  7.5 

4 

7/  6/06 

3/18/19 

14-10 

4 

3/  3/07 

3/ii/i9 

10-  9 

4 

9/16/06 

3/11/19 

11-  2 

5 

7/15/05 

3/18/19 

II-IO 

4 

5/18/07 

3/11/19 

14-  3-5 

2 

11/25/06 

3/24/19 

12-11.5 

4 

3/  1/08 

3/11/19 

15-  7-5 

2 

5/12/06 

3/31/10 

15-  4-5 

2 

5/23/07 

3/11/19 

13-  9-5 

3 

2/  9/08 

3/27/19 

10-  0 

2 

1/  3/06 

3/18/19 

16-  7-5 

2 

9/30/07 

3/20/19 

13-  8 

3 

12/29/0 6 

3/26/19 

11-  9-5 

6 

5/31/06 

3/27/19 

12-  8 

5 

10/  1/06 

3/27/19 

11-  4 

5 

7/10/07 

3/24/19 

II-IO 

5 

7/25/07 

3/18/19 

14-  1-5 

3 

9/25/06 

3/20/19 

12-  5-5 

2 

6/  5/07 

3/24/19 

15-  6 

5 

1 1/29/0 7 

3/24/19 

11-  4 

4 

11/19/06 

3/21/19 

11-  4 

7 

10/23/05 

3/27/19 

9-  6 

6 

6/  4/07 

3/24/19 

12-11.5 

4 

2/  7/05 

3/24/19 

II-IO 

6 

11/10/05 

3/24/19 

14-  6.5 

3 

3/  8/07 

3/24/19 

12-  4 

2 

10/27/04 

3/24/19 

10-  8 

6 

Fifth  Grade 

2/16/08 

3/18/19 

11-  8 

3 

10/  4/06 

3/20/19 

12-  1.5 

4 

6/15/06 

3/27/19 

10-  9 

5 

3/  4/06 

5/I3/I9 

10-  4 

5 

7/25/06 

5/  2/19 

10-  2 

5 

9/17/06 

3/27/19 

11-  8 

3 

9/29/08 

3/21/19 

16-  3 

2 

5/11/08 

3/18/19 

11-  4 

2 

10/14/06 

3/27/19 

15-  9-5 

4 

5/  5/o6 

3/18/19 

15-  1-5 

3 

2/  6/06 

3/27/19 

12-  3-5 

4 

7/  2/04 

5/  5/i9 

10-  6 

6 

12/  1/06 

3/26/19 

11-  3-5 

4 

2nd  Est. 


0\Ln  Co  4^  to  ^  Co  Cn  4^  Cn  Co  Co  Ca  Co  Co  4^  4^-  4^-  0\4^-  4^  4^  to  <-n  4^  Cn  ON  Co  to  *0  Co  to  hCo  t0^i4^4^CoCo  tOMCoCoCoCrtCnCn  to  w  104^-Co 


14 

15 

i6 

1 7 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

3 1 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

4i 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

5i 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 


4 

5 

4 

4 

2 

3 

3 

6 

I 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

2 

4 

3 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

3 

4 

4 

3 

3 

4 

6 

4 

3 

3 

5 

4 

3 

3 

4 

5 

5 

3 

5 

4 

5 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4 

5 

6 

4 

3 

4 

5 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  I  (Continued) 
Fifth  Grade 


Born 

Tested 

M.A. 

1 / 14/07 

3/27/19 

10-  8 

10/27/04 

4/29/19 

11-  8 

1/20/08 

3/25/19 

11-  0 

10/  3/06 

3/27/19 

10-  6 

10/30/07 

3/25/19 

13-  6.5 

4/15/07 

3/25/19 

13-  9 

6/  5/07 

3/18/19 

12-11.5 

8/26/04 

3/18/19 

12-  7-5 

2/20/09 

3/25/19 

15-  4-5 

3/13/07 

3/26/19 

11-  8 

3/13/08 

3/18/19 

11-  4 

9/17/07 

3/25/19 

11-  0 

7/ 11/07 

4/30/19 

11-  6 

10/ 1 2/05 

5/  2/19 

11-  6 

1/24/09 

4/30/19 

13-  9-5 

12/  2/07 

4/30/19 

10-  9 

10/28/0 7 

5/  2/19 

12-11.5 

8/22/05 

5/  2/19 

12-  0 

7/28/08 

5/  2/19 

12-  2 

6/19/08 

5/I4/I9 

11-  0 

5/27/06 

5/  1/19 

12-  3-5 

6/13/07 

4/29/19 

12-  4 

2/  8/07 

5/  2/19 

11-  1 

3/  1/08 

5/  3/i9 

12-  1.5 

8/23/07 

4/30/19 

10-  8 

7/  7/07 

4/30/19 

1 2-  9-5 

7/21/08 

4/30/19 

11-  5 

4/28/08 

5/  2/19 

13-  9 

1 / 10/06 

5/  2/19 

13-  4 

5/15/04 

5/  5/i9 

9-  3 

10/18/08 

5/12/19 

12-  3-5 

9/18/07 

5/  2/19 

12-  1.5 

4/17/09 

5/  5/i9 

14-  5 

7/  2/08 

5/  2/19 

12-  0 

5/19/07 

5/  3/i9 

13-  5 

2/  1/09 

5/  2/19 

12-  7-5 

7/18/08 

5/  7/i9 

11-  8 

3/23/06 

5/  6/19 

10-  0 

7/16/06 

4/29/19 

11-  4 

2/22/07 

5/  7/i9 

n-  4-5 

6/  8/08 

5/  5/19 

14-10.5 

6/  1/07 

4/28/19 

9-10 

4/15/08 

4/23/19 

ii-ii*5 

1/12/06 

5/  8/19 

n-  3*5 

4/  3/09 

5/  5/i9 

10-  8 

10/  8/06 

5/  6/19 

10-  8 

10/17/07 

5/  6/19 

11-  8 

3/  4/08 

5/  5/i9 

9-10 

8/12/08 

5/  6/19 

10-  0 

3/29/09 

4/23/19 

9-  7 

4/13/08 

5/  6/19 

10-10 

10/18/08 

4/21/19 

9-  6 

7/10/08 

5/  2/19 

11-  8 

5/26/08 

5/  1/19 

10-  5 

2/20/08 

4/28/19 

10-  5 

6/23/06 

5/  8/19 

9-  8 

1st  Est. 


Ui  4X  .fi.  4^  OV-n  -tx  -E>.  [\  fnfn-ktn  ;  n  Ln  Ln  -k.  ^  -U  -t^  In  tO  -L  -U  0\4^.  tO  -£*■  OJ  tO  h  Ln  tO  Oj  tO-t^-t^Oi^i. 


70 

7 1 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1 7 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

3i 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

4i 

42 


M0£££iV  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


65 


Table  I  (Continued) 
Fifth  Grade 


Born 

Tested 

M.A. 

1st  Est, 

1/  9/08 

5/  5/i9 

10-  8 

5 

9/30/08 

5/  2/19 

17-  1.5 

3 

6/20/08 

5/  2/19 

11-  0 

3 

11/19/06 

5/  7/i9 

11-  3-5 

4 

10/  2) 07 

4/30/19 

9-  7 

5 

2/22/08 

5/  3/i9 

11-  2 

4 

12/30/0 7 

5/  2/19 

11-  8 

4 

1/29/07 

5/  1/19 

11-  6 

4 

3/  7/08 

4/23/19 

10-  6 

5 

4/30/07 

5/  5/i9 

10-  8 

3 

3/  6/09 

5/  5/i9 

11-  4 

4 

10/23/0 7 

5/  5/i9 

10-  8 

4 

Fourth  Grade 

10/  5/08 

4/23/19 

11-  5 

5 

10/27/08 

4/29/19 

9-  3 

5 

3/29/09 

4/24/19 

12-  6.5 

2 

4/  9/08 

4/28/19 

11-  8 

3 

9/28/08 

4/23:19 

13-  3-5 

2 

8/23/08 

4/21/19 

11-  0 

4 

11/21/08 

4/21/19 

16-  4.5 

1 

11/11/07 

5/  7/i9 

13-  0 

3 

4/29/09 

4/21/19 

12-  7.5 

3 

1/25/08 

4/29/19 

11-  1 

6 

3/31/08 

4/23/19 

9-  9 

6 

6/  5/08 

4/30/19 

12-  2 

2 

12/30/07 

4/23/19 

16-  0 

2 

5/19/07 

5/I7/I9 

13-  0 

2 

7/12/08 

5/  7/i9 

11-  0 

3 

12/13/06 

5/  6/19 

9-  3 

5 

11/27/08 

5/  6/19 

9-  3 

5 

2/22/10 

5/  7/i9 

13-  6.5 

1 

5/  3/09 

5/  5/i9 

10-  4 

4 

2/12/07 

5/I3/I9 

11-  0 

6 

5/18/08 

4/22/19 

10-  2 

6 

5/  4/07 

4/29/19 

9-  6 

6 

12/  9/08 

5/  7/i9 

14-  9 

4 

7/24/08 

5/  7/i9 

11-  0 

4 

12/  5/06 

4/29/19 

8-  6 

5 

8/26/04 

4/21/19 

10-  0 

7 

12/21/06 

4/22/19 

8-  9 

7 

10/  6/07 

4/23/19 

8-  6 

5 

10/  6/07 

4/23/19 

8-  6 

6 

9/  7/08 

4/29/19 

12-  1.5 

5 

1/22/08 

4/29/19 

10-  4 

5 

5/14/08 

4/22/19 

9-11 

4 

6/13/09 

4/23/19 

n-11.5 

4 

8/27/09 

4/22/19 

9-  4 

4 

7/  6/06 

4/29/19 

9-1 1 

5 

5/23/09 

4/21/19 

9-  6 

3 

4/22/09 

4/21/ 19 

11-  0 

3 

10/12/09 

4/18/19 

10-  8 

3 

5/  8/08 

4/14/19 

10-  7 

4 

8/13/09 

4/i7/i9 

11-  6 

2 

1/  9/08 

4/22/19 

9-  7 

4 

10/12/07 

4/15/19 

8-  9 

6 

2nd  Est. 

5 

2 


4 

5 

6 
6 
4 

4 

5 
7 
7 

5 

6 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

4 
2 

4 

7 


66 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  I  (Continued) 


Case 

Born 

Fourth  Grade 
Tested 

M.A. 

1st  Est. 

2nd  Est, 

43 

10/ 16/08 

4/16/19 

12-  5-5 

4 

3 

44 

2/16/09 

4/15/19 

8-  8 

6 

6 

45 

12/10/08 

4/15/19 

11-  0 

4 

4 

46 

5/24/10 

4/16/19 

10-  4 

6 

6 

47 

11/  2/09 

4/15/19 

10-  7 

6 

6 

48 

7/11/08 

4/15/19 

9-1 1 

5 

5 

49 

10/29/08 

4/21/19 

10-  1 

3 

3 

50 

1/15/09 

4/17/19 

11-  7-5 

3 

3 

5i 

9/12/09 

4/30/19 

10-10 

4 

5 

52 

7/  2/08 

4/30/19 

10-  8 

4 

4 

53 

8/15/09 

4/I7/I9 

13-  3 

2 

2 

54 

12/13/09 

3/26/19 

12-10 

2 

2 

55 

4/29/09 

4/21/19 

10-  8 

4 

3 

56 

4/19/09 

4/ 14/ 1 9 

9-  6 

4 

4 

57 

12/29/09 

4/17/19 

10-  9 

2 

.2 

58 

3/11/09 

4/18/19 

9-  6 

3 

2 

59 

12/12/08 

4/18/19 

10-  4 

4 

3 

60 

5/  5/io 

4/16/19 

10-  2 

5 

5 

61 

7/1 1/09 

4/i7/i9 

8-  9 

5 

5 

62 

11/  6/05 

4/15/19 

11-  0 

7 

7 

63 

6/29/08 

4/17/19 

11-  5 

4 

4 

64 

2/27/08 

4/16/19 

10-  1 

4 

5 

65 

11/11/07 

4/21/19 

9-  6 

4 

4 

66 

10/10/09 

4/16/19 

9-  9 

5 

5 

67 

2/  3/09 

4/16/19 

9-  9 

4 

5 

68 

5/30/09 

4/21/19 

10-  1 

4 

5 

Table  II  shows  the  distribution  of  the  resulting  intelligence 
quotients.  (See  page  79  for  reason  for  selection  of  interval.) 


Table  II 


Distribution  of  364  Binet  I.  Q.’s. 


—  to  59 

60  to  75 

76  to  91 

92  to  107 

108  to  123 

124  to  139 

140  — 

0 

15 

83 

137 

93 

23 

13 

This  table  shows  that  the  cases  used  constituted  a  very  sym¬ 
metrical  distribution.  This  distribution  was  entirely  the  result  of 
chance  selection.  The  group  below  60  I.  Q.  was  not  represented, 
of  course,  for  intelligence  of  that  grade  is  usually  eliminated  from 
the  public  school.  The  slight  preponderance  of  high  I.  Q.’s  was, 
perhaps,  to  be  expected  in  the  type  of  school  which  these  children 
attend. 

The  work  of  determining  the  intelligence  quotients  was  very 
carefully  done.  The  tests  were  given  partly  by  the  writer  and 
partly  by  other  examiners,  all  of  whom  were  trained  by  him.  A 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


67 


common  exact  procedure  was  rigidly  followed,  the  responses  of 
the  children  were  written  down  verbatim,  and  the  writer  rescored 
all  papers  as  carefully  and  consistently  as  possible.  Where  known 
irregularities  of  any  kind  developed  the  test  was  discarded. 

Previous  experience  in  several  schools  led  to  a  very  careful 
checking  of  the  chronological  ages  of  the  children  before  such 
ages  were  used  as  a  basis  for  the  computation  of  intelligence  quo¬ 
tients.  It  is  a  common  thing  in  any  public  school  to  find  error  in 
from  10  per  cent  to  15  per  cent  of  records  of  chronological  ages, 
even  when  such  ages  have  been  furnished  by  parents.  This 
matter  was  followed  up  very  carefully,  the  ages  were  obtained 
from  two  or  three  different  angles,  discrepancies  noted,  and  per¬ 
sonal  work  done  to  establish  the  facts. 

After  the  intelligence  quotients  had  been  computed  on  the  basis 
of  the  rescored  papers,  and  the  rechecked  chronological  ages,  these 
quotients  were  checked  by  correlation  with  teachers’  estimates  of 
intelligence.  For  original  data  on  estimates  see  Table  II.  The 
estimates  had  been  obtained  previous  to  the  giving  of  the  Binet 
tests.  The  procedure  used  in  securing  the  estimates  utilized  the 
following  instructions: 

In  estimating  intelligence  you  are  asked  to  grade  on  a  scale  of 
1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  as  follows: 

1  =  Very  superior 

2  =  Superior 

3  =  Somewhat  above  average 

4  =  Average 

5  =  Somewhat  below  average 

6  =  Inferior 

7  —  Very  inferior 

Be  sure  to  take  age  into  account.  Compare  the  child  with  what 
you  consider  to  be  the  average  for  children  of  his  own  age. 

Avoid  grouping  your  estimates  in  one  or  two  groups.  Ordi¬ 
narily  the  4  group  (average)  will  be  the  largest  single  group.  In 
the  majority  of  classrooms  group  5  should  be  approximately  equal 
to  group  3,  group  6  equal  to  group  2 ,  and  group  7  equal  to 
group  1. 

Your  estimates  will  be  held  as  absolutely  confidential,  therefore 
do  not  hesitate  to  place  the  child  in  the  group  where  he  belongs, 
however  low  that  may  be. 


68 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


The  teachers  did  not  know  that  they  would  be  asked  to  make 
these  estimates  again;  but  about  one  week  later  they  were  asked 
to  repeat  the  process,  rating  each  child  with  no  opportunity  for 
comparison  with  the  former  rating.  Then  Pearson  correlations 
were  made  for  each  grade  (i)  between  Binet  I.  Q.  and  the  grade 
teacher’s  first  estimate  of  intelligence,  and  (2)  between  Binet 
I.  Q.  and  the  same  teacher’s  second  estimate  of  the  same  pupils. 
The  results  of  these  correlations  are  shown  in  Table  III.  The  co¬ 
efficients  are  relatively  high,  due  perhaps  (1)  to  the  care  with 
which  the  I.  Q.’s  were  determined,  and  (2)  to  unusual  ability  in 
estimation  on  the  part  of  the  teachers. 


Table  III 

Correlation  of  Binet  I.  Q.  with  Teachers’ 
Estimates  of  Intelligence. 


Grade 

1st  Est. 

2nd  Est. 

8 

.70 

•75 

7 

•77 

.68 

6 

.70 

.69 

5 

.66 

.68 

4 

.72 

•7 1 

All  Grades 

.69 

.69 

The  probable  error  of  the  above  shown  coefficients  is  approxi¬ 
mately  .04  for  all  except  the  last,  where  it  drops  to  less  than  half 
that  amount.  On  the  basis  of  the  total  showing  made  in  the  data 
it  was  concluded  that  the  determination  of  the  general  intelligence 
of  the  subjects  had  been  reliably  made,  and  that  it  was  safe  to 
use  the  results  as  a  criterion  in  the  remainder  of  the  study. 

The  next  step  was  to  give  to  the  same  subjects  a  group  intelli¬ 
gence  test  consisting  of  twenty  single  tests,  nine  of  which  were 
predominantly  of  the  perceptual  type,  and  eleven  predominantly 
of  the  symbol  type.*  Before  these  tests  could  be  given  the  number 
of  subjects  in  the  group  had  been  reduced,  by  graduation  and 
other  factors,  to  222.  The  raw  data  for  the  group  tests  of  these 
222  subjects  is  shown  in  Table  IV.  The  mental  ages  given  in  the 
table  are  rectified  mental  ages.  They  have  been  brought  up  to 

*  Copies  of  these  tests,  and  also  of  the  tests  used  in  the  lower  grade  investi¬ 
gation,  are  filed  at  Stanford  University. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


69 


date  by  the  usual  method  based  upon  ( 1 )  the  difference  between 
the  date  of  the  Binet  and  the  date  of  the  other  test,  and  (2)  the 
theory  that  the  I.  Q.  (relation  of  chronological  and  mental  age) 
remains  approximately  constant. 


Table  IV,  A 

Raw  Data  for  the  Nine  Perceptual  Tests. 
Eighth  Grade. 


Group  A 
Case  123 

4 

5 

Total 

1 

Group  B 

234  Total 

Total 

IQ 

CA 

MA 

40 

16 

8 

32 

18 

20 

94 

4 

10 

9 

9 

32 

126 

99 

15-2 

15-0 

5i 

15 

9 

30 

15 

8 

77 

7 

9 

9 

13 

38 

H5 

98 

17-0 

15-8 

54 

13 

11 

39 

18 

9 

90 

8 

8 

10 

15 

4i 

131 

102 

14-8 

14-10 

56 

13 

11 

39 

18 

7 

88 

10 

5 

9 

15 

39 

127 

93 

15-6 

14-4 

59 

16 

11 

37 

18 

20 

102 

10 

10 

9 

10 

39 

141 

104 

14-2 

14-8 

60 

13 

7 

3i 

1 7 

6 

74 

9 

7 

9 

15 

40 

114 

97 

16-4 

15-10 

63 

14 

9 

35 

18 

7 

83 

10 

10 

9 

7 

36 

1 19 

79 

17-0 

12-9 

65 

15 

11 

34 

1 7 

14 

9i 

6 

9 

8 

11 

34 

125 

106 

14-6 

15-4 

66 

13 

8 

35 

18 

15 

89 

10 

7 

9 

12 

38 

127 

97 

13-11 

13-5 

7i 

13 

10 

39 

18 

16 

96 

9 

7 

8 

14 

38 

134 

81 

15-2 

12-4 

72 

13 

1 2 

39 

17 

14 

95 

10 

9 

10 

15 

44 

139 

96 

15-10 

14-3 

Seventh  Grade 


2 

14 

6 

35 

16 

12 

83 

9 

8 

10 

11 

38 

121 

hi 

14-2 

15-8 

3 

16 

13 

37 

18 

17 

IOI 

9 

10 

10 

15 

44 

145 

121 

13-9 

16-7 

4 

15 

9 

30 

11 

16 

81 

10 

8 

6 

7 

31 

112 

93 

15-8 

14-7 

5 

15 

12 

39 

1 7 

1 7 

100 

10 

10 

10 

14 

44 

144 

116 

14-7 

16-10 

6 

15 

9 

32 

15 

18 

89 

9 

10 

9 

9 

37 

126 

93 

17-2 

14-10 

7 

14 

10 

29 

15 

9 

77 

10 

8 

10 

12 

40 

1 17 

no 

14- 1 

15-5 

11 

16 

9 

37 

18 

13 

93 

10 

9 

9 

12 

40 

133 

109 

14-n 

16-5 

12 

16 

11 

35 

17 

13 

92 

10 

10 

10 

13 

43 

135 

121 

14-0 

16- 1 1 

13 

15 

12 

38 

18 

12 

95 

10 

10 

9 

14 

43 

138 

123 

13-3 

16-3 

14 

13 

11 

32 

11 

16 

83 

10 

9 

9 

12 

40 

123 

93 

16-0 

15-0 

1 7 

15 

11 

38 

16 

16 

96 

10 

10 

10 

12 

42 

138 

141 

14-0 

19-9 

18 

12 

9 

3i 

14 

8 

74 

9 

6 

8 

12 

35 

109 

62 

15-10 

9-10 

19 

15 

12 

32 

18 

20 

97 

10 

10 

10 

12 

42 

139 

93 

i5-i 

14-0 

21 

12 

12 

35 

15 

17 

9i 

10 

10 

8 

13 

4i 

132 

89 

15-4 

13-7 

22 

15 

11 

37 

18 

14 

95 

10 

9 

8 

15 

42 

137 

no 

13-n 

15-4 

23 

16 

9 

26 

15 

13 

79 

8 

8 

9 

10 

35 

114 

99 

14-5 

14-3 

24 

15 

10 

28 

15 

11 

79 

9 

10 

9 

10 

38 

11 7 

1 19 

14-3 

16-n 

25 

15 

7 

27 

18 

16 

83 

9 

10 

9 

14 

42 

125 

118 

12-11 

15-2 

26 

14 

10 

36 

16 

18 

94 

9 

9 

9 

14 

4i 

135 

107 

15-3 

16-5 

27 

14 

9 

26 

15 

10 

74 

7 

9 

8 

8 

32 

106 

92 

14-0 

12-10 

30 

13 

11 

39 

18 

12 

93 

10 

10 

9 

15 

44 

137 

115 

14-0 

1 6- 1 

3i 

13 

10 

32 

18 

15 

88 

10 

8 

9 

12 

39 

127 

100 

13-n 

13-10 

33 

14 

10 

35 

18 

20 

97 

10 

10 

10 

13 

43 

140 

127 

14-0 

17-9 

35 

14 

9 

36 

18 

11 

88 

10 

10 

10 

13 

43 

131 

106 

14-1 

15-0 

37 

15 

9 

25 

18 

11 

78 

10 

8 

8 

8 

34 

112 

88 

15-8 

13-8 

38 

15 

7 

32 

10 

9 

73 

10 

8 

9 

6 

33 

106 

88 

14-9 

12-11 

39 

15 

10 

24 

18 

12 

79 

9 

8 

10 

10 

37 

116 

109 

14-5 

15-10 

40 

13 

9 

26 

13 

11 

72 

6 

8 

3 

9 

26 

98 

95 

13-3 

12-8 

4i 

14 

7 

29 

16 

14 

80 

9 

9 

10 

13 

4i 

121 

100 

15-9 

15-9 

42 

16 

8 

37 

18 

17 

96 

9 

10 

10 

13 

42 

138 

ii7 

14-5 

16-10 

43 

14 

7 

22 

17 

11 

7 1 

10 

9 

9 

13 

4i 

1 12 

93 

14-5 

13-4 

45 

15 

12 

32 

18 

13 

90 

10 

10 

9 

11 

40 

130 

130 

13-0 

16-10 

46 

16 

9 

28 

18 

13 

84 

8 

10 

9 

12 

39 

123 

97 

14-2 

13-8 

70 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  IV,  A  (Continued) 


Group  A 
Case  123 

4 

5 

Total 

Seventh  Grade 

Group  B 
1234  Total 

Total 

IQ 

CA 

MA 

47 

14 

7 

39 

16 

9 

85 

10 

9 

8 

10 

37 

122 

80 

14-5 

1 1-5 

48 

16 

8 

34 

14 

12 

84 

10 

10 

10 

10 

40 

124 

148 

12-6 

18-5 

49 

14 

10 

38 

18 

16 

96 

8 

7 

8 

14 

37 

133 

91 

13-n 

12-8 

50 

12 

11 

39 

18 

12 

92 

10 

8 

8 

13 

39 

131 

1 14 

12-11 

14-9 

5i 

15 

8 

34 

1 7 

13 

87 

9 

9 

10 

10 

38 

125 

74 

16-1 

12-1 

52 

14 

12 

35 

18 

14 

93 

10 

8 

10 

14 

42 

135 

114 

13-8 

15-7 

53 

15 

12 

37 

18 

1 7 

99 

10 

5 

8 

12 

35 

134 

99 

14-5 

14-3 

54 

13 

10 

30 

16 

20 

89 

9 

8 

10 

10 

37 

126 

83 

14-10 

12-4 

55 

14 

7 

3i 

1 7 

1 7 

86 

10 

6 

7 

14 

37 

123 

84 

14-8 

12-4 

56 

12 

10 

35 

15 

7 

79 

10 

6 

8 

9 

33 

1 12 

122 

12-10 

15-7 

57 

14 

11 

39 

13 

14 

9i 

10 

7 

9 

14 

40 

131 

93 

14-0 

13-0 

58 

16 

12 

34 

18 

17 

97 

10 

10 

10 

14 

44 

141 

113 

13-n 

15-8 

60 

15 

9 

39 

15 

20 

98 

10 

10 

9 

15 

44 

142 

121 

13-6 

16-3 

61 

13 

9 

39 

18 

16 

95 

9 

10 

9 

10 

39 

133 

112 

14-0 

15-10 

62 

12 

9 

26 

18 

10 

75 

9 

9 

10 

10 

38 

11 3 

93 

13-6 

12-6 

63 

9 

8 

25 

14 

13 

69 

10 

3 

7 

9 

29 

98 

88 

14-10 

13-0 

64 

14 

9 

3i 

12 

13 

79 

10 

7 

8 

14 

39 

1 18 

92 

14-2 

13-0 

65 

15 

10 

27 

17 

14 

83 

9 

10 

10 

9 

38 

121 

128 

13-4 

17-2 

66 

12 

10 

35 

18 

18 

93 

10 

7 

7 

11 

35 

128 

IIO 

13-8 

15-1 

6  7 

16 

12 

36 

16 

17 

97 

10 

9 

8 

14 

4i 

138 

1 22 

ii-ii 

14-5 

1 

14 

10 

39 

15 

2 

80 

Si: 

5 

>cth 

8 

G 

9 

rac 

9 

e 

3i 

in 

98 

13-4 

I3-I 

2 

15 

8 

20 

17 

14 

74 

6 

10 

9 

14 

39 

113 

81 

15-5 

12-6 

3 

12 

9 

37 

18 

16 

92 

9 

9 

8 

9 

35 

127 

99 

15-7 

15-4 

6 

14 

10 

33 

18 

15 

90 

10 

10 

8 

8 

36 

126 

102 

13-5 

13-8 

7 

11 

10 

28 

16 

12 

77 

9 

10 

6 

9 

34 

in 

85 

15-4 

13-0 

8 

16 

9 

3i 

17 

13 

86 

8 

9 

10 

9 

36 

122 

86 

14-10 

12-8 

9 

13 

8 

37 

15 

18 

9i 

9 

10 

9 

14 

42 

133 

94 

13-10 

13-1 

10 

16 

10 

35 

18 

16 

95 

10 

10 

9 

14 

43 

138 

140 

12-4 

17-3 

12 

10 

7 

3i 

12 

14 

74 

8 

0 

5 

14 

27 

101 

74 

17-0 

12-0 

13 

16 

6 

30 

13 

11 

76 

8 

10 

12 

13 

4i 

117 

101 

13-3 

13-5 

14 

16 

14 

39 

18 

20 

107 

9 

9 

9 

15 

42 

149 

94 

13-n 

13-2 

15 

11 

9 

35 

18 

16 

89 

10 

9 

10 

10 

39 

128 

88 

13-10 

12-3 

16 

15 

10 

37 

13 

14 

89 

10 

10 

9 

10 

39 

128 

107 

13-8 

14-7 

17 

16 

12 

39 

18 

17 

102 

9 

10 

10 

15 

44 

146 

98 

13-n 

13-9 

18 

14 

10 

39 

18 

11 

92 

10 

6 

6 

15 

37 

129 

9i 

12-10 

n-8 

21 

14 

8 

39 

18 

12 

9i 

9 

9 

7 

13 

38 

129 

102 

12-0 

12-3 

22 

16 

11 

37 

18 

14 

96 

9 

10 

9 

8 

36 

132 

120 

13-10 

16-6 

23 

13 

8 

24 

16 

16 

77 

9 

10 

9 

9 

37 

114 

107 

13-3 

14-2 

24 

15 

12 

39 

17 

15 

98 

10 

10 

10 

13 

43 

141 

143 

11-8 

16-8 

25 

14 

10 

32 

17 

16 

89 

10 

9 

10 

13 

42 

131 

135 

12-8 

17-0 

26 

12 

9 

34 

18 

12 

85 

10 

7 

9 

9 

35 

120 

79 

15-0 

II-IO 

27 

12 

9 

37 

18 

14 

88 

7 

5 

7 

12 

3i 

119 

72 

14-3 

10-4 

30 

16 

10 

35 

11 

17 

89 

10 

8 

10 

13 

41 

130 

105 

12-10 

13-5 

32 

12 

8 

30 

16 

10 

76 

8 

9 

8 

7 

32 

108 

98 

13-9 

i3-4 

35 

14 

7 

28 

18 

10 

77 

9 

10 

9 

11 

39 

1 16 

123 

12-11 

15-10 

36 

15 

9 

37 

14 

11 

86 

9 

10 

9 

15 

43 

129 

134 

12-3 

16-4 

38 

15 

11 

37 

18 

14 

95 

9 

9 

9 

13 

40 

135 

108 

13-7 

14-9 

39 

13 

9 

29 

14 

6 

7i 

10 

10 

4 

10 

34 

105 

9i 

13-3 

12-1 

MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


71 


Table  IV,  A  (Continued) 
Sixth  Grade 


Group  A  Group  B 


Case 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Total 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Total 

Total 

IQ 

CA 

MA 

4i 

15 

11I39I18 

11 

94 

9 

9 

9 

14 

4i 

135 

no 

14-3 

15-8 

42 

10 

11 

37 

18 

17 

93 

10 

8 

7 

14 

39 

132 

122 

13-9 

16-8 

43 

12 

9 

36 

16 

16 

89 

9 

8 

8 

9 

34 

123 

104 

12-10 

13-4 

44 

15 

10 

29 

16 

9 

79 

9 

9 

10 

8 

36 

115 

88 

14- 1 1 

13-2 

45 

15 

10 

32 

18 

10 

85 

10 

8 

10 

13 

4i 

126 

119 

13-9 

16-4 

46 

14 

7 

28 

14 

13 

76 

10 

8 

8 

9 

35 

hi 

in 

12-11 

14-5 

47- 

8 

8 

25 

15 

11 

67 

6 

8 

7 

9 

30 

97 

93 

13-5 

12-7 

49 

14 

10 

30 

15 

12 

81 

10 

9 

0 

9 

28 

109 

89 

13-3 

II-IO 

50 

14 

8 

3i 

12 

15 

80 

9 

8 

8 

14 

39 

119 

87 

14-5 

12-6 

5i 

15 

12 

29 

14 

10 

80 

9 

8 

10 

9 

36 

116 

121 

12-7 

15-2 

52 

15 

7 

23 

11 

17 

73 

10 

9 

9 

6 

34 

107 

105 

13-1 

13-8 

54 

14 

8 

27 

17 

18 

84 

8 

9 

8 

12 

37 

121 

119 

13-7 

16-2 

55 

16 

8 

24 

18 

14 

80 

8 

9 

7 

11 

35 

ii5 

117 

12-7 

14-7 

56 

12 

8 

33 

13 

11 

77 

10 

4 

7 

11 

32 

109 

97 

1 1-9 

10-8 

57 

14 

7 

39 

14 

13 

87 

6 

9 

7 

11 

33 

120 

126 

13-n 

17-6 

58 

11 

7 

19 

18 

17 

72 

7 

8 

3 

0 

18 

90 

119 

12-3 

14-6 

59 

12 

6 

26 

7 

12 

63 

9 

10 

8 

9 

36 

99 

98 

12-11 

12-5 

61 

8 

7 

25 

10 

12 

62 

10 

5 

8 

12 

35 

97 

9i 

13-2 

ii-ii 

66 

13 

9 

39 

18 

14 

93 

10 

7 

10 

11 

38 

131 

100 

12-1 

12-1 

6  7 

12 

9 

27 

14 

8 

70 

8 

9 

4 

12 

33 

103 

92 

13-1 

12-0 

70 

13 

9 

39 

17 

10 

88 

9 

8 

0 

8 

25 

113 

82 

14-10 

12-5 

7 1 

15 

13 

30 

18 

18 

94 

8 

9 

10 

15 

42 

136 

109 

14- 1 

15-4 

72 

12 

12 

30 

13 

20 

87 

9 

9 

8 

11 

37 

124 

102 

12-9 

13-1 

73 

7 

7 

34 

1 7 

10 

75 

8 

6 

7 

9 

30 

105 

74 

15-2 

1 1-3 

Fifth  Grade 
Group  A  Group  B 


Case  12345  Total  1234  Total  Total  IQ  CA  MA 


1 

7 

8 

30 

11 

14 

70 

9 

9 

8 

11 

37 

107 

105 

II-IO 

12-5 

2 

14 

0 

29 

18 

17 

78 

9 

8 

9 

9 

35 

1 13 

97 

13-3 

12-10 

3 

13 

8 

28 

13 

14 

76 

8 

6 

5 

12 

3i 

107 

84 

13-5 

1 1-4 

5 

9 

7 

22 

10 

16 

64 

9 

10 

8 

10 

37 

IOI 

80 

13-4 

10-7 

6 

13 

9 

25 

12 

11 

70 

9 

8 

9 

11 

37 

107 

94 

13-2 

12-4 

7 

15 

7 

26 

14 

13 

75 

9 

9 

9 

9 

36 

in 

152 

ii-3 

17-4 

8 

14 

9 

29 

18 

6 

76 

9 

9 

8 

12 

38 

114 

105 

1 1-7 

12-1 

9 

14 

8 

30 

13 

17 

82 

7 

10 

10 

4 

3i 

11 3 

127 

13-1 

16-6 

10 

11 

8 

3i 

18 

17 

85 

10 

9 

10 

15 

44 

129 

117 

13-7. 

15-n 

11 

14 

7 

28 

8 

11 

68 

8 

7 

7 

6 

28 

96 

93 

13-10 

12-10 

15 

12 

7 

28 

11 

8 

66 

9 

5 

9 

8 

31 

87 

80 

i5-i 

12-1 

16 

14 

8 

27 

1 7 

6 

72 

9 

9 

7 

12 

37 

104 

98 

II-IO 

1 1-8 

1 7 

14 

6 

30 

14 

14 

78 

9 

9 

6 

11 

35 

113 

84 

13-3 

1 1-2 

18 

14 

7 

27 

1 7 

18 

83 

8 

8 

7 

11 

34 

117 

118 

12-1 

14-3 

19 

12 

8 

28 

14 

14 

76 

9 

10 

8 

4 

3i 

107 

1 16 

12-7 

14-6 

20 

12 

10 

22 

16 

15 

75 

10 

8 

10 

8 

36 

in 

no 

12-6 

13-9 

21 

15 

9 

27 

15 

18 

84 

9 

9 

9 

10 

37 

121 

86 

15-3 

i3-3 

22 

14 

8 

32 

17 

11 

82 

9 

10 

8 

10 

37 

119 

151 

10-9 

16-3 

23 

13 

9 

32 

11 

i5 

80 

10 

9 

9 

9 

37 

117 

98 

12-9 

12-5 

24 

12 

7 

30 

15 

16 

80 

10 

9 

10 

13 

42 

121 

103 

1 1-9 

12-1 

25 

14 

12 

39 

18 

14 

97 

10 

10 

9 

13 

42 

139 

95 

12-2 

1 1-8 

26 

13 

9 

27 

11 

10 

70 

9 

9 

7 

5 

30 

100 

97 

12-6 

1 2-2 

27 

13 

9 

3i 

12 

14 

79 

9 

5 

6 

10 

30 

109 

1  85 

14-2 

12-0 

■4 

72 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  IV,  A  (Continued) 


Fifth  Grade  (Continued) 


Group  A 
Case  123 

4 

5 

Total 

1 

Group  B 

234  Total 

Total 

IQ 

CA 

MA 

29 

12 

10 

27 

12 

18 

79 

10 

7 

1 

13 

3i 

no 

94 

12-1 

1 1-5 

30 

13 

8 

25 

14 

15 

75 

10 

9 

9 

12 

40 

115 

113 

12-1 

13-7 

3i 

1 2 

9 

21 

9 

11 

62 

5 

9 

10 

8 

32 

94 

88 

14-3 

12-6 

32 

13 

9 

24 

9 

12 

67 

7 

10 

6 

11 

34 

IOI 

113 

1 1-4 

12-10 

33 

14 

7 

33 

15 

7 

76 

9 

5 

5 

8 

27 

103 

100 

1 1-6 

11-7 

35 

14 

8 

28 

16 

15 

81 

8 

9 

10 

i5 

42 

123 

194 

12-5 

12-11 

36 

15 

8 

25 

12 

9 

69 

9 

6 

7 

7 

29 

98 

90 

12-10 

1 1-7 

38 

1 2 

10 

34 

11 

11 

78 

9 

10 

7 

9 

35 

11 3 

9i 

12-4 

1 1-3 

39 

14 

9 

22 

1 3 

10 

68 

8 

9 

5 

9 

3i 

99 

108 

12-6 

13-6 

40 

13 

9 

39 

17 

13 

9i 

10 

8 

7 

8 

33 

124 

106 

ii-5 

12-1 

4i 

9 

8 

24 

15 

14 

70 

10 

8 

10 

8 

36 

106 

126 

11-7 

14-6 

44 

14 

9 

20 

11 

16 

70 

9 

7 

9 

9 

34 

104 

116 

11-2 

12-11 

45 

14 

9 

28 

15 

12 

78 

9 

9 

8 

7 

33 

in 

105 

12-2 

12-8 

a6 

14 

7 

26 

15 

14 

76 

10 

9 

10 

9 

38 

1 14 

143 

10-8 

15-3 

47 

9 

9 

26 

18 

14 

76 

10 

7 

8 

8 

33 

109 

in 

ii-5 

12-8 

5i 

14 

9 

22 

18 

0 

63 

8 

8 

8 

0 

24 

87 

76 

13-8 

10-5 

52 

15 

7 

27 

10 

11 

70 

8 

9 

7 

8 

32 

102 

89 

13-5 

ii-ii 

53 

12 

7 

39 

13 

13 

84 

9 

10 

0 

8 

27 

in 

93 

13-9 

II-IO 

54 

13 

7 

20 

11 

9 

60 

10 

10 

7 

8 

35 

95 

136 

11-6 

15-8 

55 

13 

9 

26 

10 

1 

59 

9 

8 

7 

11 

35 

94 

82 

12-7 

10-4 

56 

14 

8 

27 

10 

11 

60 

8 

5 

6 

9 

28 

88 

109 

1 1-8 

12-8 

57 

12 

8 

27 

14 

17 

78 

8 

8 

8 

9 

33 

in 

85 

13-n 

1 1-9 

58 

13 

7 

25 

12 

14 

7i 

9 

9 

6 

6 

30 

IOI 

106 

10-8 

ii-3 

59 

15 

8 

28 

16 

20 

87 

9 

10 

8 

12 

39 

126 

84 

13-2 

1 1-2 

61 

16 

8 

26 

14 

13 

77 

8 

8 

9 

10 

35 

112 

88 

1 1-9 

10-3 

62 

10 

8 

23 

9 

12 

62 

5 

10 

7 

9 

3i 

93 

93 

1 1-4 

10-6 

63 

13 

6 

25 

15 

11 

70 

6 

10 

8 

14 

38 

108 

95 

10-9 

10-3 

64 

14 

9 

23 

9 

15 

70 

7 

10 

8 

8 

33 

103 

98 

1 1-8 

ii-5 

65 

11 

7 

25 

11 

0 

54 

10 

6 

7 

8 

3i 

85 

9i 

1 1-2 

IO-I 

67 

15 

9 

32 

15 

11 

82 

7 

8 

8 

15 

38 

120 

95 

11-6 

II-O 

68 

13 

10 

37 

15 

12 

87 

5 

7 

8 

10 

30 

117 

93 

II-IO 

II-O 

69 

15 

6 

37 

14 

12 

84 

6 

7 

8 

15 

36 

120 

75 

13-6 

IO-I 

70 

9 

7 

3i 

14 

0 

61 

8 

8 

10 

9 

35 

96 

94 

ii-ii 

1 1-2 

7 1 

14 

9 

21 

12 

5 

61 

10 

10 

8 

11 

39 

100 

162 

1 1-2 

l8-0 

74 

10 

8 

26 

11 

4 

49 

9 

8 

8 

12 

37 

86 

83 

12-2 

IO-I 

75 

14 

9 

36 

15 

9 

83 

7 

8 

8 

13 

36 

119 

100 

1 1-9 

1 1-9 

78 

14 

8 

27 

18 

17 

84 

8 

8 

9 

13 

38 

122 

95 

11-9 

11-2 

79 

13 

7 

35 

13 

7 

75 

9 

8 

8 

11 

36 

hi 

89 

12-7 

1 1-2 

Fourth  Grade 


I 

14 

6 

21 

10 

13 

64 

5 

8 

9 

10 

32 

96 

108 

ii-3 

12-2 

2 

15 

7 

23 

5 

0 

50 

8 

7 

6 

8 

29 

79 

88 

ii-i 

9-9 

5 

11 

7 

26 

10 

14 

68 

8 

10 

8 

6 

32 

100 

126 

1 1-3 

14-0 

6 

13 

8 

25 

13 

11 

70 

9 

10 

4 

13 

36 

106 

103 

1 1-4 

1 1-8 

9 

11 

8 

25 

16 

14 

74 

8 

6 

10 

13 

37 

in 

126 

.10-8 

13-4 

10 

14 

7 

22 

11 

18 

72 

10 

9 

9 

10 

38 

no 

99 

ii-ii 

1 1-9 

11 

13 

9 

28 

18 

16 

84 

9 

10 

9 

8 

36 

120 

88 

1 1-9 

10-4 

13 

i5 

11 

29 

18 

16 

89 

10 

10 

10 

13 

43 

132 

141 

12-0 

16-10 

14 

13 

9 

25 

10 

12 

69 

8 

10 

9 

8 

35 

104 

108 

12-7 

13-8 

15 

13 

8 

21 

14 

11 

67 

9 

9 

6 

12 

3d 

103 

102 

ii-5 

11  -7 

17 

12 

8 

3i 

16 

12 

79 

7 

6 

9 

8 

30 

109 

89 

II-O 

9-9 

18 

13 

11 

3i 

13 

1 7 

85 

8 

10 

10 

13 

4i 

126 

148 

9-9 

14-4 

19 

13 

9 

32 

13 

14 

81 

6 

9 

8 

11 

34 

1 15 

100 

10-7 

IO-I  1 

MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


73 


Table  IV,  A  (Continued 
Fourth  Grade  (Continued) 


Group  A  Group  B 


Case 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Total 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Total 

Total 

IQ 

CA 

MA 

20 

13 

8|2i 

15 

14 

7 1 

8 

8 

5 

14 

35 

106 

90 

12-10 

1 1-6 

21 

9 

8 

21 

9 

4 

5i 

8 

8 

3 

6 

25 

76 

93 

ii-7 

10-9 

22 

13 

5 

28 

10 

11 

67 

9 

7 

7 

10 

33 

100 

79 

12-7 

10-0 

23 

15 

8 

25 

13 

13 

74 

7 

10 

8 

7 

32 

106 

138 

11-0 

15-6 

25 

10 

7 

19 

4 

13 

53 

8 

7 

0 

8 

23 

76 

69 

12-11 

8-11 

27 

16 

4 

17 

12 

8 

57 

4 

5 

2 

5 

16 

73 

70 

13-0 

9-3 

28 

11 

8 

25 

10 

7 

61 

8 

4 

1 

12 

25 

86 

73 

12-3 

9-0 

29 

13 

5 

23 

12 

3 

56 

9 

4 

2 

10 

25 

81 

73 

12-3 

9-0 

30 

14 

7 

30 

14 

1 7 

82 

9 

7 

8 

11 

35 

11 7 

114 

ii-3 

12-9 

31 

15 

7 

19 

15 

12 

68 

4 

7 

10 

9 

30 

98 

92 

II-IO 

10-10 

32 

12 

6 

18 

12 

7 

55 

10 

10 

8 

12 

40 

95 

9i 

1 1-7 

10-6 

33 

12 

9 

30 

1 7 

13 

81 

8 

6 

8 

8 

30 

hi 

121 

10-6 

12-8 

35 

13 

7 

25 

10 

12 

67 

8 

8 

8 

6 

30 

97 

77 

13-5 

10-4 

38 

14 

8 

24 

17 

13 

76 

6 

8 

9 

8 

3i 

107 

1 12 

10-2 

ii-5 

40 

14 

7 

25 

18 

14 

78 

6 

9 

8 

12 

35 

1 13 

1 19 

10-4 

12-4 

46 

10 

5 

18 

0 

4 

37 

10 

6 

6 

6 

28 

65 

1 16 

9-7 

11-1 

47 

9 

9 

25 

12 

12 

67 

9 

9 

8 

7 

33 

100 

112 

10- 1 

1 1-4 

48 

12 

2 

23 

7 

0 

44 

6 

6 

2 

6 

20 

64 

92 

1 1  -5 

10-6 

49 

14 

7 

24 

9 

12 

66 

9 

8 

4 

6 

27 

93 

96 

1 1-2 

10-9 

51 

11 

7 

24 

9 

11 

62 

9 

7 

9 

13 

38 

100 

112 

10-4 

ii-7 

52 

11 

8 

27 

15 

11 

72 

8 

7 

7 

13 

35 

107 

98 

1 1“5 

ii-3 

54 

12 

7 

26 

11 

13 

69 

8 

9 

7 

6 

30 

99 

138 

9-11 

13-8 

5^ 

10 

7 

28 

12 

13 

70 

8 

7 

9 

10 

34 

104 

107 

10-8 

1 1-5 

57 

15 

7 

37 

13 

7 

74 

9 

9 

7 

7 

32 

hi 

1 16 

10-0 

1 1-6 

58 

12 

6 

19 

13 

13 

63 

6 

8 

7 

5 

26 

89 

94 

10-9 

10- 1 

59 

15 

10 

21 

15 

11 

72 

10 

9 

8 

7 

34 

106 

100 

II-O 

11-0 

60 

10 

7 

27 

9 

11 

64 

9 

8 

6 

4 

27 

9i 

114 

9-7 

10- 1 1 

61 

11 

7 

28 

13 

11 

70 

9 

8 

5 

11 

33 

103 

90 

10-5 

9-4 

62 

8 

6 

22 

8 

3 

47 

7 

4 

6 

3 

20 

67 

82 

14- 1 

11-6 

64 

11 

7 

21 

13 

14 

66 

9 

9 

8 

6 

32 

98 

9i 

1 1-9 

10-8 

65 

12 

9 

29 

14 

14 

78 

9 

9 

9 

13 

40 

1 18 

82 

12- 1 

1 0-0 

66 

9 

7 

19 

8 

12 

55 

8 

0 

6|  7 

21 

76 

103 

10-2 

10-5 

Table  IV,  B 

Raw  Data  for  the  Eleven  Symbol  Tests. 
Eighth  Grade 


Group  A  Group  B 


Case 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Total 

I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Total 

Total 

IQ 

CA 

MA 

40 

8 

7 

23 

25 

9 

22 

94 

14 

3i 

10 

10 

22 

87 

181 

99 

15-2 

15-0 

5i 

7 

6 

33 

28 

10 

11 

95 

11 

32 

9 

17 

18 

87 

182 

98 

17-0 

15-10 

54 

7 

7 

27 

28 

14 

21 

104 

14 

30 

9 

13 

21 

87 

191 

102 

14-8 

14-10 

56 

7 

7 

16 

22 

10 

18 

80 

14 

16 

7 

11 

18 

66 

146 

93 

15-6 

14-4 

59 

11 

8 

19 

3i 

13 

21 

103 

15 

32 

9 

15 

20 

91 

194 

104 

14-2 

14-8 

60 

5 

7 

14 

25 

9 

14 

74 

10 

22 

9 

10 

15 

66 

140 

97 

16-4 

15-10 

63 

6 

7 

14 

21 

9 

11 

68 

10 

27 

9 

7 

11 

64 

132 

79 

17-0 

12-9 

65 

6 

9 

34 

35 

15 

22 

121 

10 

33 

9 

19 

21 

92 

213 

106 

14-6 

15-4 

66 

5 

5 

16 

20 

9 

15 

70 

12 

22 

8 

10 

12 

64 

134 

97 

13-n 

13-5 

7i 

8 

9 

19 

23 

9 

14 

82 

14 

32 

10 

13 

16 

85 

167 

81 

15-2 

12-4 

72 

4 

8 

22 

26 

15 

17 

92 

12 

28 

8 

15 

23 

86 

178 

9  6 

15-10 

14-3 

74 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  IV,  B  (Continued) 
Seventh  Grade 

Group  A  Group  B 


Case 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Total 

I 

2 

3 

2 

9 

8 

20 

26 

13 

15 

9i 

14 

25 

8 

3 

10 

9 

33 

24 

16 

22 

114 

14 

30 

10 

4 

6 

6 

21 

28 

8 

14 

83 

10 

25 

8 

5 

13 

9 

30 

38 

13 

23 

126 

14 

36 

10 

6 

10 

7 

24 

27 

10 

20 

98 

13 

25 

9 

7 

9 

7 

19 

25 

10 

22 

92 

12 

24 

9 

ii 

5 

8 

14 

29 

8 

19 

83 

10 

20 

9 

12 

10 

7 

25 

3i 

11 

20 

104 

14 

36 

10 

13 

7 

7 

27 

38 

15 

22 

1 16 

15 

33 

10 

14 

6 

8 

1 7 

24 

9 

18 

82 

15 

29 

9 

1 7 

10 

8 

23 

35 

14 

23 

113 

12 

34 

10 

18 

3 

5 

9 

10 

6 

9 

42 

10 

1 7 

•5 

19 

8 

8 

24 

30 

13 

19 

102 

13 

34 

9 

21 

5 

7 

17 

13 

11 

15 

68 

11 

25 

9 

22 

6 

7 

19 

26 

11 

23 

92 

14 

3i 

10 

23 

9 

8 

27 

26 

11 

20 

IOI 

13 

26 

10 

24 

8 

8 

1 7 

27 

11 

14 

85 

10 

28 

10 

25 

10 

6 

23 

30 

6 

19 

94 

14 

29 

9 

26 

10 

9 

23 

21 

9 

21 

93 

1 1 

18 

7 

27 

8 

9 

22 

28 

6 

19 

92 

10 

19 

6 

30 

11 

9 

22 

3i 

14 

21 

108 

16 

32 

8 

31 

2 

8 

24 

33 

11 

18 

96 

15 

25 

9 

33 

7 

8 

19 

35 

9 

23 

IOI 

15 

33 

10 

35 

5 

8 

12 

26 

5 

17 

73 

11 

15 

7 

37 

5 

6 

15 

22 

8 

17 

73 

13 

21 

9 

38 

7 

6 

25 

24 

9 

14 

85 

9 

28 

8 

39 

8 

7 

21 

27 

9 

22 

94 

11 

21 

8 

40 

6 

8 

18 

27 

10 

17 

86 

9 

25 

8 

4i 

6 

8 

24 

26 

10 

19 

93 

11 

19 

8 

42 

7 

6 

29 

25 

13 

15 

95 

13 

28 

9 

43 

6 

8 

21 

24 

9 

22 

90 

11 

27 

7 

45 

8 

8 

24 

29 

11 

21 

IOI 

13 

34 

9 

46 

8 

7 

15 

18 

10 

14 

72 

11 

12 

6 

47 

6 

6 

14 

19 

9 

15 

69 

13 

23 

9 

48 

10 

9 

32 

34 

15 

21 

121 

16 

39 

10 

49 

5 

8 

21 

22 

10 

17 

83 

13 

33 

9 

50 

9 

9 

28 

3i 

13 

22 

112 

14 

36 

10 

5i 

5 

7 

21 

25 

9 

14 

81 

10 

24 

6 

52 

10 

8 

22 

27 

11 

21 

99 

12 

22 

10 

53 

7 

8 

15 

23 

7 

17 

77 

13 

1 7 

8 

54 

3 

7 

11 

12 

6 

11 

50 

7 

21 

7 

55 

7 

7 

23 

26 

13 

13 

89 

12 

24 

9 

56 

6 

7 

1 7 

24 

10 

15 

79 

12 

20 

8 

57 

7 

8 

1 7 

28 

12 

18 

90 

10 

27 

9 

58 

8 

8 

26 

27 

12 

22 

103 

11 

32 

9 

60 

8 

7 

25 

3i 

10 

20 

IOI 

12 

36 

8 

61 

3 

8 

16 

24 

11 

1 7 

79 

11 

30 

10 

62 

6 

7 

24 

27 

9 

15 

88 

12 

28 

9 

63 

6 

7 

19 

25 

10 

17 

84 

12 

25 

8 

64 

4 

8 

13 

16 

10 

16 

67 

9 

20 

10 

65 

9 

6 

27 

38 

13 

21 

1 14 

12 

34 

10 

66 

6 

8 

18 

25 

14 

19 

90 

15 

20 

9 

67 

5 

8 

25 

26 

14 

21 

99 

9 

29 

10 

4 

5 

Total 

Total 

IQ 

CA 

MA 

14 

18 

79 

170 

in 

14-2 

15-8 

10 

21 

85 

199 

121 

13-9 

16-7 

10 

1 7 

70 

153 

93 

15-n 

14-7 

14 

22 

96 

222 

116 

14-7 

16-10 

11 

15 

73 

171 

93 

17-2 

14-10 

9 

21 

75 

167 

no 

14-1 

15-5 

11 

18 

68 

151 

109 

14-n 

16-5 

13 

21 

94 

198 

121 

14-0 

16-n 

15 

23 

96 

212 

123 

13-3 

16-3 

13 

1 7 

83 

165 

93 

16-0 

15-0 

1 7 

16 

89 

202 

141 

14-0 

19-9 

8 

9 

49 

9i 

62 

15-10 

9-10 

14 

18 

88 

190 

93 

15-1 

14-0 

13 

14 

72 

140 

89 

15-4 

13-7 

12 

18 

85 

1 77 

no 

13-n 

15-4  • 

9 

19 

77 

178 

99 

14-5 

14-3 

13 

18 

79 

164 

119 

14-3 

16- 1 1 

8 

11 

7 1 

165 

118 

12-11 

15-2 

13 

19 

68 

161 

107 

15-3 

16-5 

10 

1 7 

62 

154 

92 

14-0 

12-10 

13 

20 

89 

197 

ii5 

14-0 

16-1 

12 

15 

76 

172 

100 

13-n 

13-10 

13 

18 

89 

190 

127 

14-0 

17-9 

6 

9 

48 

121 

106 

14- 1 

15-0 

13 

18 

74 

147 

88 

15-8 

13-8 

13 

11 

69 

154 

88 

14-9 

12-11 

14 

18 

72 

1 66 

109 

14-5 

15-10 

9 

17 

68 

154 

95 

13-3 

12-8 

7 

20 

65 

158 

100 

15-9 

15-9 

13 

22 

85 

180 

n  7 

14-5 

16-10 

7 

19 

7i 

161 

93 

14-5 

13-4 

10 

18 

84 

185 

130 

13-3 

16-10 

10 

21 

60 

132 

97 

14-2 

13-8 

11 

15 

7 1 

140 

80 

14-5 

ii-5 

12 

22 

99 

220 

148 

12-6 

18-5 

11 

20 

86 

169 

9i 

13-n 

12-8 

14 

22 

96 

208 

114 

12-11 

14-9 

12 

13 

65 

146 

74 

16-1 

12-1 

12 

15 

7 1 

170 

114 

13-8 

15-7 

9 

1 7 

64 

141 

99 

i4-5 

14-3 

10 

15 

60 

no 

83 

14-10 

12-4 

13 

18 

76 

165 

84 

14-8 

12-4 

15 

16 

7i 

150 

122 

12-10 

15-7 

17 

14 

77 

167 

93 

14-0 

13-0 

14 

22 

88 

191 

11 3 

13-n 

15-8 

8 

21 

85 

186 

121 

13-6 

16-3 

15 

16 

82 

161 

112 

14-0 

15-10 

6 

22 

77 

165 

93 

13-6 

12-6 

9 

14 

68 

152 

88 

14-10 

13-0 

12 

21 

72 

139 

92 

14-2 

13-0 

21 

14 

9i 

205 

128 

13-4 

17-2 

13 

19 

76 

166 

no 

13-8 

1 5- 1 

15 

20 

83 

182  | 

122I 

11-11I14-5 

MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


Table  IV,  B  (Continued) 
Sixth  Grade 


Group  A  Group  B 


Case 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Total 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Total 

Total  IQ 

CA 

1 

6 

7 

1 7 

20 

7 

17 

74 

9,27 

7 

9 

16 

68 

142 

98 

13-4 

2 

3 

7 

15 

22 

8 

13 

68 

8 

23 

6 

9 

19 

65 

133 

81 

15-5 

3 

8 

4 

22 

25 

11 

15 

85 

12 

27 

9 

8 

19 

75 

160 

99 

15-7 

6 

8 

8 

16 

32 

11 

20 

95 

13 

34 

10 

10 

19 

86 

181 

102 

13-5 

7 

4 

3 

7 

18 

5 

12 

49 

9 

19 

8 

7 

12 

55 

104 

85 

15-4 

8 

5 

7 

17 

21 

11 

19 

80 

12 

21 

9 

5 

12 

59 

139 

86 

14-10 

9 

6 

8 

15 

16 

8 

16 

69 

10 

25 

5 

6 

18 

64 

133 

94 

13-10 

10 

9 

8 

25 

34 

14 

12 

102 

11 

34 

10 

14 

20 

89 

191 

140 

12-4 

12 

1 

6 

17 

22 

10 

1 7 

73 

11 

16 

7 

7 

15 

56 

129 

74 

17-0 

13 

3 

7 

18 

15 

10 

21 

74 

13 

19 

9 

11 

18 

70 

144 

101 

13-3 

14 

6 

9 

15 

15 

11 

12 

68 

12 

19 

9 

12 

15 

67 

135 

94 

13-n 

15 

4 

7 

20 

24 

9 

11 

75 

12 

3i 

9 

13 

19 

84 

159 

88 

13-10 

16 

7 

9 

26 

38 

13 

18 

hi 

11 

3i 

7 

8 

19 

76 

187 

107 

13-8 

1 7 

5 

7 

22 

21 

11 

18 

84 

12 

19 

10 

13 

19 

73 

157 

98 

13-n 

18 

4 

8 

16 

24 

12 

13 

77 

14 

27 

6 

14 

18 

79 

156 

91 

12-10 

21 

6 

6 

12 

27 

10 

16 

77 

10 

18 

9 

9 

16 

62 

139 

102 

12-0 

22 

8 

9 

22 

32 

14 

18 

103 

11 

28 

10 

10 

16 

75 

178 

120 

13-10 

23 

7 

6 

12 

22 

10 

15 

72 

10 

23 

8 

8 

16 

65 

137 

107 

13-3 

24 

8 

9 

24 

30 

13 

21 

105 

11 

36 

10 

13 

22 

92 

197 

143 

1 1-8 

25 

9 

8 

14 

27 

11 

18 

87 

14 

28 

10 

11 

17 

78 

165 

135 

12-8 

26 

8 

6 

9 

14 

8 

14 

59 

12 

23 

6 

9 

11 

61 

120 

79 

15-0 

27 

3 

7 

16 

19 

8 

13 

66 

12 

20 

8 

10 

17 

67 

133 

72 

14-3 

30 

5 

9 

24 

25 

10 

9 

82 

10 

33 

7 

15 

19 

84 

166 

105 

12-10 

32 

5 

7 

14 

23 

10 

12 

7i 

11 

28 

7 

10 

19 

75 

146 

98 

13-9 

35 

10 

9 

20 

27 

9 

20 

95 

11 

26 

10 

10 

18 

75 

170 

123 

12-11 

36 

8 

7 

28 

22 

14 

19 

98 

10 

34 

9 

15 

22 

90 

188 

134 

12-3 

38 

8 

8 

23 

24 

7 

19 

89 

11 

26 

10 

14 

18 

79 

168 

108 

13-7 

39 

4 

8 

26 

25 

12 

15 

90 

10 

26 

9 

13 

21 

79 

169 

9i 

13-3 

4i 

5 

8 

24 

38 

13 

17 

105 

14 

30 

9 

18 

22 

93 

198 

no 

14-3 

42 

6 

7 

20 

20 

13 

18 

84 

10 

29 

8 

13 

20 

80 

164 

122 

13-9 

43 

7 

7 

15 

21 

10 

16 

76 

10 

26 

10 

10 

17 

73 

149 

104 

12-10 

44 

8 

5 

10 

28 

8 

16 

75 

11 

23 

5 

9 

16 

64 

139 

88 

14-n 

45 

9 

7 

18 

28 

9 

1 7 

88 

12 

27 

9 

14 

22 

84 

172 

119 

13-9 

46 

8 

8 

16 

28 

10 

12 

82 

13 

28 

8 

11 

15 

75 

157 

in 

12-11 

47 

4 

7 

11 

21 

8 

15 

66 

9 

20 

9 

7 

12 

57 

123 

93 

13-5 

49 

8 

7 

15 

26 

10 

17 

83 

12 

24 

7 

12 

15 

7o 

153 

89 

13-3 

50 

5 

7 

19 

17 

10 

15 

73 

12 

30 

9 

10 

15 

76 

149 

87 

14-5 

5i 

9 

8 

19 

30 

10 

22 

98 

11 

34 

10 

5 

18 

78 

176 

121 

12-7 

52 

5 

7 

10 

21 

5 

10 

58 

11 

20 

9 

8 

12 

60 

1 18 

105 

13-1 

54 

7 

7 

21 

27 

11 

22 

95 

10 

35 

9 

9 

16 

79 

174 

119 

13-7 

55 

6 

6 

9 

18 

9 

13 

61 

10 

19 

8 

10 

15 

62 

123 

117 

12-7 

56 

5 

7 

1 7 

22 

8 

8 

67 

11 

22 

6 

11 

17 

67 

134 

97 

1 1-9 

57 

9 

8 

18 

3i 

12 

21 

99 

11 

23 

10 

13 

23 

80 

179 

126 

13-n 

58 

9 

5 

25 

23 

10 

17 

89 

11 

30 

7 

10 

11 

69 

158 

119 

12-3 

59 

6 

5 

8 

18 

4 

14 

55 

10 

17 

7 

9 

12 

55 

no 

96 

12-11 

61 

6 

6 

12 

25 

10 

1 7 

76 

8 

20 

10 

12 

16 

66 

142 

9i 

13-2 

66 

4 

6 

13 

24 

11 

22 

80 

10 

23 

6 

13  17 

69 

149 

100 

12-1 

67 

5 

5 

8 

19 

7 

11 

55 

8 

1 7 

6 

7, 

8 

46 

101 

92 

13-1 

70 

4 

7 

10 

0 

11 

10 

42 

11 

20 

5 

9U3 

58 

100 

82 

14-10 

7 1 

6 

9 

1 7 

18 

11 

21 

82 

11 

22 

9 

9I21 

72 

154 

109 

14- 1 

72 

4 

6 

14 

12 

9 

17 

62 

10 

22 

7 

61 17 

62 

124 

102 

12-9 

73 

2 

5 

13 

19 

8 

11 

58 

11 

261  6| 

n| 

12 

66 

124 

74 

15-2 

MA 

i3-i 

12- 6 

15- 4 

13- 8 

13-0 

12- 8 

13- 1 

17-3 

12- 0 

13- 5 

13- 2 

12- 3 

14- 7 

13- 9 

1 1- 8 

12- 3 

16- 6 

14- 2 

16- 8 

17- 0 

11- IO 

10- 4 

13- 5 

13- 4 

15- 10 

16- 4 

14- 9 

12- 1 

15- 8 

16- 8 

13- 4 

13- 2 
16-4 

14- 5 

12- 7 

11- IO 

12- 6 

15- 2 

13- 8 

16- 2 

14- 7 

10- 8 

17- 6 

14- 6 

12-5 

11- ii 

12- 1 
12-0 

12- 5 

15- 4 

13- 1 

1 1-3 


76 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  IV,  B  (Continued) 
Fifth  Grade 


Group  A  Group  B 


Case 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Total 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Total 

Total 

IQ 

CA 

MA 

i 

6 

8 

13 

20 

8 

16 

7i 

11 

22 

7 

12 

3 

55 

126 

105 

ii-io 

12-5 

2 

7 

6 

14 

22 

9 

10 

68 

11 

27 

6 

8 

15 

67 

135 

97 

13-3 

12-10 

3 

3 

3 

11 

20 

5 

8 

50 

5 

19 

5 

8 

12 

49 

99 

84 

13-5 

1 1-4 

5 

6 

6 

14 

20 

8 

10 

64 

9 

21 

6 

9 

10 

55 

119 

80 

13-4 

10-7 

6 

7 

8 

13 

20 

7 

15 

70 

10 

19 

9 

10 

12 

60 

130 

94 

13-2 

12-4 

7 

11 

7 

20 

28 

14 

22 

102 

10 

3i 

10 

9 

12 

72 

174 

152 

ii-3 

17-4 

8 

7 

7 

18 

22 

10 

17 

81 

10 

18 

7 

9 

18 

62 

'143 

105 

n  -7 

12-1 

9 

7 

7 

20 

3i 

12 

M 

9i 

6 

26 

8 

16 

19 

75 

166 

127 

13-1 

16-6 

io 

7 

9 

25 

3i 

13 

21 

106 

10 

39 

8 

1 1 

22 

90 

196 

117 

13-7 

i5-n 

ii 

4 

4 

6 

16 

7 

1 1 

48 

9 

18 

7 

9 

12 

55 

103 

93 

13-10 

12-10 

15 

1  8 

5 

12 

14 

9 

5 

53 

9 

16 

3 

7 

12 

47 

100 

80 

15-1 

12-1 

16 

5 

6 

12 

22 

8 

15 

68 

12 

21 

8 

11 

13 

65 

133 

98 

11-10 

1 1-8 

1 7 

5 

6 

13 

17 

9 

12 

62 

8 

23 

7 

13 

17 

68 

130 

84 

13-3 

1 1-2 

18 

3 

7 

16 

23 

8 

12 

69 

12 

25 

7 

11 

19 

74 

M3 

118 

12-1 

14-3 

19 

12 

8 

21 

28 

11 

21 

101 

12 

32 

10 

15 

21 

90 

191 

116 

12-7 

14-6 

20 

8 

7 

18 

27 

11 

22 

93 

9 

33 

9 

15 

20 

86 

179 

no 

12-6 

13-9 

21 

4 

8 

16 

22 

10 

11 

7i 

8 

26 

9 

10 

16 

69 

140 

86 

15-3 

13-3 

22 

7 

7 

24 

38 

10 

19 

105 

12 

34 

10 

16 

17 

89 

194 

151 

10-9 

16-3 

23 

4 

8 

16 

17 

10 

15 

70 

10 

22 

8 

9 

15 

64 

134 

98 

12-9 

12-5 

24 

7 

7 

14 

25 

11 

14 

78 

11 

23 

9 

10 

15 

68 

146 

103 

1 1-9 

12-1 

25 

8 

8 

15 

24 

9 

20 

84 

9 

27 

9 

9 

14 

68 

152 

95 

12-2 

1 1-8 

26 

4 

7 

9 

14 

9 

9 

52 

10 

18 

5 

9 

13 

55 

107 

97 

12-6 

12-2 

27 

3 

7 

13 

21 

10 

15 

69 

9 

18 

5 

9 

11 

52 

121 

85 

14-2 

12-0 

29 

5 

7 

18 

15 

7 

12 

64 

9 

16 

8 

6 

9 

48 

1 12 

94 

12-1 

ii-5 

30 

7 

8 

24 

30 

10 

20 

99 

11 

28 

9 

13 

12 

73 

172 

11 3 

12-1 

13-7 

31 

6 

2 

15 

6 

5 

14 

48 

10 

17 

5 

8 

8 

48 

96 

88 

14-3 

12-6 

32 

7 

7 

25 

27 

12 

18 

96 

12 

25 

10 

8 

18 

73 

169 

113 

11-4 

12-10 

33 

4 

7 

9 

19 

8 

12 

59 

10 

17 

9 

7 

12 

55 

114 

100 

1 1-6 

1 1-7 

35 

5 

6 

18 

26 

11 

18 

86 

12 

24 

7 

11 

16 

70 

156 

104 

12-5 

12-11 

36 

3 

6 

14 

25 

9 

12 

69 

9 

25 

7 

13 

15 

69 

138 

90 

12-10 

ii-7 

38 

7 

7 

12 

14 

9 

10 

59 

11 

23 

6 

9 

11 

60 

119 

91 

12-4 

ii-3 

39 

5 

4 

11 

16 

8 

12 

56 

8 

27 

7 

9 

16 

67 

123 

108 

12-6 

13-6 

40 

7 

7 

13 

21 

8 

17 

73 

10 

25 

8 

12 

15 

70 

143 

106 

ii-5 

12-1 

4i 

8 

6 

12 

25 

10 

21 

82 

7 

29 

9 

8 

15 

68 

150 

126 

n -7 

14-6 

44 

4 

7 

10 

17 

8 

17 

63 

7 

18 

7 

10 

16 

58 

121 

116 

1 1-2 

12- 1 1 

45 

4 

7 

13 

24 

7 

18 

73 

8 

23 

8 

11 

17 

6  7 

140 

105 

12-2 

12-8 

46 

6 

8 

14 

23 

12 

18 

81 

12 

26 

8 

13 

16 

75 

156 

143 

10-8 

15-3 

47 

4 

7 

18 

27 

9 

15 

80 

9 

22 

10 

8 

14 

63 

143 

in 

ii-5 

12-8 

5i 

7 

6 

10 

18 

3 

6 

50 

8 

14 

3 

9 

12 

46 

96 

76 

13-8 

10-5 

52 

5 

5 

17 

20 

9 

2 

58 

9 

19 

6 

6 

12 

52 

no 

89 

13-5 

n-n 

53 

8 

3 

4 

15 

9 

13 

52 

8 

19 

4 

8 

9 

48 

100 

93 

12-9 

II-IO 

54 

9 

6 

20 

23 

11 

19 

88 

11 

24 

9 

11 

19 

74 

162 

136 

1 1-6 

15-8 

55 

4 

6 

14 

14 

8 

6 

52 

7 

17 

5 

11 

18 

58 

no 

82 

12-7 

10-4 

56 

8 

5 

21 

14 

7 

13 

68 

12 

25 

5 

7 

18 

67 

135 

109 

1 1 -8 

12-8 

57 

6 

5 

3 

11 

5 

8 

38 

6 

18 

4 

8 

11 

47 

85 

85 

13-n 

ii-9 

58 

6 

6 

15 

26 

9 

15 

77 . 

11 

27 

8 

8 

16 

70 

147 

106 

10-8 

n-3 

59 

3 

4 

5 

7 

4 

5 

28 

8 

14 

3 

3 

9 

37 

65 

84 

13-2 

11-2 

61 

4 

5 

11 

13 

6 

13 

52 

9 

16 

5 

7 

12 

49 

101 

88 

1 1-9 

10-4 

62 

3 

5 

10 

13 

6 

10 

47 

1 

13 

3 

8 

13 

38 

85 

93 

11-4 

10-6 

63 

4 

6 

15 

11 

8 

14 

58 

8 

18 

1 

11 

13 

51 

109 

95 

10-9 

10-3 

64 

6 

4 

14 

21 

9 

17 

7i 

6 

19 

6 

11 

18 

60 

131 

98 

1 1-8 

ii-5 

65 

3 

4 

5 

13 

5 

4 

35 

4 

14 

5 

8 

9 

40 

74 

9i 

1 1-2 

IO-I 

67 

4I 

6 

15 

0 

6 

14 

45 

10 

11 

4 

0 

17 

42 

87 

95 

n-6 

n-o 

68 

5 

7 

10 

14 

/ 

i| 

44 

10 

10 

6 

11 

15 

52 

96 

93 

II-IO 

n-o 

69 

5 

5 

12 

10 

8 

13 

53 

6 

17 

6 

10 

13 

52 

105 

75T3-6 

IO-I 

MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


77 


Table  IV,  B  (Continued) 
Fifth  Grade  (Continued) 


Group  A  Group  B 


Case 

I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Total 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Total 

Total 

IQ 

CA 

MA 

70 

5 

5 

10 

5 

6 

9 

40 

8 

14 

5 

8 

12 

47 

87 

94 

ii-n 

1 1-2 

7 1 

6 

6 

26 

29 

9 

20 

96 

9 

29 

9 

10 

14 

7i 

167 

162 

11-2 

18-0 

74 

6 

3 

8 

9 

5 

13 

44 

9 

1 7 

5 

8 

12 

5i 

95 

83 

12-2 

IO-I 

75 

4 

5 

10 

16 

5 

13 

53 

11 

13 

4 

6 

9 

43 

96 

100 

1 1-9 

1 1-9 

78 

3 

3 

5 

4 

3 

5 

23 

8 

14 

2 

4 

11 

39 

62 

95 

1 1-9 

11-2 

79 

2 

4 

3 

17 

11 

16 

53 

9 

14 

5 

6 

1 7 

5i 

104 

89 

12-7 

1 1-2 

Fourth  Grade 


1 

5 

4 

2 

14 

4 

8 

37 

10 

18 

4 

6 

9 

47 

84 

108 

11  -3 

12-1 

2 

6 

5 

9 

18 

6 

5 

49 

5 

20 

4 

8 

11 

48 

97 

88 

ii-i 

9-10 

5 

5 

8 

10 

18 

6 

8 

55 

9 

30 

10 

10 

15 

74 

129 

126 

1 1-3 

13-n 

6 

4 

4 

10 

20 

5 

13 

56 

8 

18 

4 

6 

11 

47 

103 

103 

1 1-4 

1 1-8 

9 

4 

7 

15 

19 

8 

15 

68 

8 

19 

7 

10 

16 

60 

128 

126 

10-8 

13-3 

10 

4 

5 

11 

14 

8 

11 

53 

7 

20 

5 

12 

1 7 

61 

114 

99 

ii-n 

1 1-9 

11 

2 

4 

9 

10 

2 

14 

4i 

5 

15 

4 

8 

14 

46 

87 

88 

1 1-9 

10-5 

13 

8 

8 

21 

29 

9 

19 

94 

8 

24 

7 

15 

22 

76 

170 

141 

12-0 

16-8 

14 

4 

5 

10 

27 

9 

12 

67 

9 

18 

8 

10 

14 

59 

126 

108 

12-7 

13-7 

15 

5 

5 

10 

1 7 

7 

14 

58 

6 

20 

6 

8 

1 7 

57 

ii5 

102 

1 1  *5 

1 1-7 

1 7 

6 

6 

8 

19 

7 

15 

61 

9 

21 

9 

8 

15 

62 

123 

89 

II-O 

9-10 

18 

7 

8 

25 

30 

13 

21 

104 

10 

28 

10 

7 

19 

74 

178 

148 

9-9 

14-1 

19 

6 

7 

16 

18 

9 

13 

69 

9 

21 

10 

11 

18 

69 

138  | 

100 

10-7 

10-7 

20 

6 

4 

9 

19 

6 

14 

58 

9 

13 

4 

8 

14 

48 

106 

90 

12-10 

1 1-7 

21 

6 

4 

4 

19 

4 

13 

50 

8 

17 

6 

9 

10 

50 

100 

93 

1 1-7 

10-10 

22 

4 

6 

9 

4 

6 

4 

33 

7 

16 

3 

9 

18 

53 

86 

79 

12-7 

IO-I 

23 

5 

6 

17 

22 

7 

16 

73 

8 

30 

9 

10 

16 

73 

146 

138 

II-O 

15-4 

25 

4 

3 

10 

19 

4 

1 

4i 

5 

6 

3 

11 

13 

38 

79 

69 

12-11 

9-i 

27 

3 

6 

8 

17 

8 

9 

51 

5 

16 

5 

8 

10 

44 

95 

70 

13-0 

9-5 

28 

0 

2 

12 

10 

7 

6 

37 

7 

16 

4 

7 

9 

43 

80 

73 

12-3 

9-2 

29 

0 

2 

3 

0 

2 

5 

12 

7 

13 

2 

2 

4 

28 

40 

73 

12-3 

9-2 

30 

5 

5 

8 

13 

5 

10 

46 

8 

16 

4 

7 

12 

47 

93 

1 14 

H-3 

12-8 

3i 

4 

6 

11 

13 

7 

14 

55 

8 

16 

3 

8 

9 

44 

99 

92 

II-IO 

IO-I  I 

32 

4 

5 

9 

13 

6 

14 

5i 

8 

20 

5 

5 

10 

48 

99 

9i 

1 1-7 

10-7 

33 

6 

5 

11 

1 7 

6 

13 

58 

9 

14 

5 

10 

14 

52 

no 

121 

10-6 

12-7 

35 

3 

6 

6 

17 

6 

i5 

53 

8 

16 

7 

6 

12 

49 

102 

77 

13-5 

10-6 

38 

2 

8 

15 

18 

9 

11 

63 

8 

23 

7 

14 

20 

72 

135 

112 

10-2 

1 1-4 

40 

7 

7 

17 

15 

11 

12 

69 

9 

18 

8 

15 

13 

63 

132 

119 

10-4 

12-2 

46 

6 

3 

7 

14 

6 

5 

4i 

8 

18 

4 

5 

10 

45 

86 

1 16 

9-7 

II-O 

47 

4 

7 

8 

21 

8 

10 

58 

8 

22 

7 

8 

16 

61 

119 

112 

10-1 

ii-3 

48 

3 

5 

13 

11 

7 

8 

47 

6 

15 

5 

7 

12 

45 

92 

92 

ii-5 

10-7 

49 

4 

5 

13 

16 

6 

11 

55 

8 

19 

5 

8 

14 

54 

109 

96 

1 1-2 

10-9 

5i 

2 

5 

5 

12 

3 

8 

35 

8 

19 

1 

1 

9 

38 

73 

112 

10-4 

1 1-6 

52 

6 

5 

12 

14 

8 

4 

49 

0 

16 

7 

11 

15 

49 

98 

98 

1 1-5 

1 1-3 

54 

1 

7 

18 

25 

12 

19 

82 

9 

24 

9 

11 

18 

7 1 

153 

139 

9-1 1 

13-6 

55 

4 

3 

6 

14 

4 

9 

40 

7 

19 

3 

5 

10 

44 

84 

107 

10-8 

1 1-4 

57 

6 

8 

16 

29 

9 

16 

84 

11 

24 

8 

8 

12 

63 

147 

1 16 

10-0 

ii-5 

58 

3 

4 

8 

12 

6 

13 

46 

6 

18 

3 

6 

11 

44 

90 

94 

10-9 

10-2 

59 

4 

5 

10 

17 

6 

16 

58 

9 

19 

6 

10 

13 

57 

115 

100 

II-O 

II-O 

60 

3 

6 

12 

23 

6 

11 

61 

7 

22 

7 

7 

16 

59 

120 

114 

9-7 

10-10 

61 

4 

4 

10 

8 

3 

8 

37 

7 

1 7 

2 

8 

5 

39 

76 

90 

10-5 

9-5 

62 

2 

4 

4 

11 

5 

10 

36 

8 

14 

5 

3 

8 

38 

74 

82 

14-1 

1 1-8 

64 

1  2 

4 

6 

1 

5 

11 

29 

9 

1 7 

2 

8 

9 

45 

74 

9i 

1 1-9 

10-9 

65 

1  4 

5 

3 

19 

10 

10 

5i 

7 

17 

5 

7 

12 

48 

99 

82 

12-1 

10-2 

66 

1  1 

3 

7 

16 

5 

10 

42 

8 

16 

5 

6 

9 

44 

86 

103 

10-2 

10-5 

78 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


The  first  evidence  drawn  from  these  data  in  favor  of  the  theory 
of  levels  in  intentionally  controlled  intelligence  was  found  in  cer¬ 
tain  correlations  made  between  the  results  of  the  individual  and 
the  combined  group  tests  with  Binet  mental  age.  A  table  of 
these  correlations  is  given  below. 

Table  V 

Correlation  Coefficients  of  the  Individual  and  Combined  Group  Tests  with 


Binet  Mental  Age. 


I. 

Perceptual  Tests. 

II. 

Symbol  Tests. 

I. 

Picture  Completion  . . 

. 42 

I. 

Arithmetical  Reasoning.. 

•63 

II. 

Series  Completion  . . 

. 46 

II. 

Written  Directions  . 

.58 

III. 

Comparison  . 

. 40 

III. 

Information  . 

.68 

IV. 

Symbol  Digit  . 

. 45 

IV. 

Synonym-Antonym  . 

•65 

V. 

Form  Combination  . . 

. 34 

V. 

Practical  Judgment . 

•65 

VI. 

Copying  Designs  . . . . 

. 30 

VI. 

Analogies  . 

.68 

VII. 

Pictorial  Sequence  . . 

. 43 

VII. 

Arithmetical  Fundamen- 

tals  . 

•59 

VIII 

Pictorial  Identities 

. 46 

VIII. 

Vocabulary  . 

•75 

IX. 

Recognitive  Memory 

. 29 

IX. 

Sentence  Completion  _ 

.68 

X. 

Mixed  up  Sentences  . 

•53 

XI. 

Logical  Selection  . 

.60 

Total  Perceptual  .... 

Total  Symbol  . 

.80 

The  tests  featured  in  the  foregoing  table  are  those  used  by  the 
National  Research  Council  in  their  preliminary  trials  for  the 
standardization  of  an  elementary  school  group  test.  The  writer 
is  fully  aware  that  it  is  psychologically  impossible  to  make  an 
absolute  classification  of  tests  as  “perceptual”  tests  and  “symbol” 
tests.  Each  test  is  of  both  types  to  a  certain  degree.  But  it  is 
possible  to  classify  the  tests  as  predominantly  of  one  type  or  the 
other,  which  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  bring  out  the  point  in 
question.  Assuming  that  this  is  so,  the  results  given  in  the  table 
show  a  decided  tendency  in  favor  of  the  theory  being  tested. 
The  tests  in  which  perceptual  elements  predominate  do  not  cor¬ 
relate  as  highly  in  any  case  with  Binet  mental  age  as  do  the  tests 
in  which  symbol  elements  predominate.  The  perceptual  tests  as 
a  battery  correlate  only  .60,  while  the  symbol  tests  as  a  battery 
correlate  .80. 

The  majority  of  the  individual  symbol  tests  taken  singly 
correlate  higher  with  Binet  mental  age  than  does  the  whole  bat¬ 
tery  of  perceptual  tests.  The  vocabulary  test  alone,  perhaps  the 
most  abstract  of  all,  shows  a  coefficient  which  is  15  points  above 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


79 


the  whole  perceptual  battery.  These  differences  cannot  reason¬ 
ably  be  ascribed  to  mere  differences  in  the  amount  of  standardi¬ 
zation  which  the  given  tests  have  had.  They  have  had  at  least 
approximately  equal  standardization.  Nor  can  the  differences 
reasonably  be  ascribed  to  differences  in  reliability  of  the  individ¬ 
ual  tests,  although  if  time  and  other  conditions  had  permitted  the 
computation  of  reliability  coefficients  would  have  been  a  valuable 
addition  to  the  evidence.  The  differences  shown  in  the  table  are, 
however,  so  large  that  it  seems  a  reasonable  assumption  that  they 
are  due,  at  least  in  part,  to  the  fact  that  the  two  types  of  tests  tap 
different  levels  of  intelligence,  and  that  on  one  of  these  levels, 
the  perceptual,  high  and  low  intelligence  are  closer  together  in 
achievement  than  on  the  other,  and  therefore  are  not  so  well  dif¬ 
ferentiated  by  tests  which  tap  only  that  level. 

The  next  step  was  that  of  making  a  more  definite  contrast  be¬ 
tween  the  achievement  of  high  and  low  intelligence  in  the  per¬ 
ceptual  tests  and  in  the  symbol  tests.  The  cases  were  first  dis¬ 
tributed  as  to  chronological  age  and  I.  0.  as  shown  in  Table  VI. 

After  the  cases  had  been  distributed  as  to  chronological  age 
and  I.  Q.,  as  shown  in  Table  VI,  a  contrast  was  made  as  shown 
in  Table  VII.  Middle  I.  Q.’s — those  between  92  and  107  inclu¬ 
sive — were  dropped;  and  the  achievement  of  I.  Q.  below  92  was 
contrasted  with  the  achievement  of  I.  Q.  above  107.  The  limits 
of  the  central  group  (a  span  of  15  points  from  92  to  107)  were 
chosen  rather  arbitrarily  (1)  because  seven  groups  arranged  in 
intervals  of  15  points  of  I.  Q.  fit  very  well  with  the  seven  point 
scale  upon  which  teachers’  judgments  of  intelligence  were 
made,  and  (2)  because  by  actual  attempts  at  distribution, 
groups  based  upon  intervals  of  20  points  proved  to  be  too  wide, 
while  those  based  upon  intervals  of  10  points  were  too  narrow. 
The  contrast  was  made  separately  for  the  perceptual  tests  as  a 
group,  and  for  the  symbol  tests  as  another  group.  That  is,  the 
total  scores  of  the  low  I.  Q.’s  in  the  perceptual  tests  were  ranked 
and  the  median  score  found.  The  same  was  done  for  the  scores 
of  the  high  I.  Q.’s  in  the  same  tests.  Then  the  median  score  for 
low  I.  Q.  was  divided  by  the  median  score  for  high  I.  0.  Thus 
there  was  developed  a  ratio  (or  index)  of  the  relative  success  of 


8o 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  VI 


Chronological  Age  and  Binet  I.  Q. 


10 

No.  Yrs. 

j 

I.Q. 

11 

No.  Yrs. 

I.Q. 

12 

No.  Yrs. 

I.Q. 

No. 

13 

Yrs. 

1 

I.Q. 

Fourth  Grade 

Fourth  Grade 

Fourth  Grade 

Fourth  Grade 

9 

10-8 

126 

1 

11  -3 

108 

13 

12-0 

141 

27 

13-0 

70 

19 

10-7 

100 

2 

ii-i 

88 

14 

12-7 

108 

35 

13-5 

77 

33 

10-6 

121 

5 

ii-3 

126 

20 

12-10 

90 

38 

10-2 

112 

6 

1 1-4 

103 

22 

12-7 

79 

Fifth  Grade 

40 

10-4 

119 

10 

ii-ii 

99 

25 

12-11 

69 

2 

13-3 

97 

47 

10- 1 

1 12 

11 

11-9 

88 

28 

12-3 

73 

3 

13-5 

84 

5i 

10-4 

112 

15 

n-5 

102 

29 

12-3 

73 

5 

13-4 

80 

55 

10-8 

107 

1 7 

11-0 

89 

65 

12-1 

82 

6 

13-2 

94 

57 

10-0 

1 16 

21 

1 1-7 

93 

9 

13-1 

127 

58 

10-9 

94 

23 

II-O 

138 

fifth  Grade 

10 

13-7 

117 

61 

10-5 

90 

30 

1 1-3 

1 14 

18 

12-1 

118 

11 

13-10 

93 

66 

10-2 

103 

3i 

II-IO 

92 

19 

12-7 

116 

17 

13-3 

84 

32 

11-7 

9i 

20 

12-6 

no 

5i 

13-8 

76 

fifth  Grade 

48 

1 1-5 

92 

23 

12-9 

98 

52 

13-5 

89 

22 

10-9 

151 

49 

1 1-2 

96 

25 

1 2-2 

95 

57 

13-n 

85 

46 

10-8 

143 

52 

ii-5 

98 

26 

12-6 

97 

59 

13-2 

84 

63 

10-9 

95 

59 

n-o 

100 

29 

12-1 

94 

69 

13-6 

75 

64 

11-9 

9i 

30 

12-1 

113 

35 

12-5 

104 

Sixth  Grade 

fifth  Grade 

36 

12-10 

90 

I 

13-4 

98 

1 

II-IO 

105 

38 

12-4 

9i 

6 

13-5 

102 

7 

1 1 -3 

152 

39 

12-6 

108 

9 

13-10 

94 

8 

1 1-7 

105 

45 

12-2 

105 

13 

13-3 

IOI 

16 

II-IO 

98 

53 

12-9 

93 

14 

13-n 

94 

24 

1 1-9 

103 

55 

12-7 

82 

15 

13-10 

88 

32 

1 1-4 

113 

74 

12-2 

83 

16 

13-8 

107 

33 

11-6 

100 

79 

1 2-7 

89 

17 

13-n 

98 

40 

ii"5 

106 

22 

13-10 

120 

4i 

1 1-7 

126 

Sixth  Grade 

23 

1 3-3 

107 

44 

1 1-2 

1 16 

10 

12-4 

140 

32 

13-9 

98 

47 

1 1-5 

hi 

18 

12-10 

9i 

38 

13-7 

108 

54 

1 1 -6 

136 

21 

12-0 

102 

39 

13-3 

9i 

56 

11-8 

109 

25 

12-8 

135 

42 

13-9 

122 

61 

1 1-9 

88 

30 

12-10 

105 

45 

13-9 

H9 

62 

11-4 

93 

35 

12-11 

123 

47 

13-5 

93 

64 

11-8 

98 

36 

12-3 

134 

49 

13-3 

89 

65 

11-2 

9i 

43 

12-10 

104 

52 

13-1 

105 

67 

1 1-6 

95 

46 

12- 1 1 

hi 

54 

13-7 

119 

68 

II-IO 

93 

5i 

12-7 

121 

57 

13-n 

126 

70 

ii-ii 

94 

55 

12-7 

117 

61 

13-2 

9i 

7 1 

11-2 

162 

58 

12-3 

119 

67 

13-1 

92 

75 

1 1-9 

100 

59 

12-11 

96 

78 

1 1-9 

95 

66 

12-1 

100 

Seventh  Grade 

72 

12-9 

102 

3 

13-9 

121 

Sixth  Grade 

13 

13-3 

123 

24 

11-8 

143 

Seventh  Grade 

22 

13-n 

no 

56 

1 1-9 

97 

25 

12-11 

118 

3i 

13-n 

100 

48 

12-6 

148 

40 

13-3 

95 

Seventh  Grade 

50 

12-11 

1 14 

45 

13-3 

130 

67 

ii-ii 

122 

56 

12-10 

122 

49 

13-n 

9i 

52 

13-8 

114 

58 

13-n 

1 13 

60 

13-6 

121 

14 

No.Yrs.  I.Q. 


Fourth  Grade 

62 

14-1 

82 

Fifth  Grade 

27 

14-2 

85 

3i 

14-3 

88 

Sixth  Grade 

8 

14-10 

86 

27 

14-3 

72 

4i 

14-3 

no 

44 

14-n 

88 

50 

14-5 

87 

70 

14-10 

82 

7i 

14- 1 

109 

Seventh  Grade 

2 

14-2 

in 

5 

14-7 

116 

7 

14-1 

no 

n 

14-n 

109 

12 

14-0 

112 

1 7 

14-0 

141 

23 

14-5 

99 

24 

14-3 

119 

27 

14-0 

92 

30 

14-0 

ii5 

33 

14-0 

127 

35 

14- 1 

106 

38 

14-9 

88 

39 

14-5 

109 

42 

14-5 

117 

43 

14-5 

93 

46 

14-2 

97 

47 

14-5 

80 

53 

14-5 

99 

54 

14-10 

83 

55 

14-8 

84 

57 

14-0 

93 

61 

14-0 

112 

63 

14-10 

88 

64 

14-2 

92 

Eighth  Grade 

54 

14-8 

102 

59 

14-2 

104 

65 

14-6 

106 

13  yrs.  (contd.) 

62 

13-6 

93 

65 

13-4 

128 

66 

13-8 

no 

Eighth  Grade 

66  13- 1 1  97 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


81 


the  two  groups  of  pupils  in  the  perceptual  tests.  The  same  pro¬ 
cess  carried  through  for  the  symbol  tests  provided  an  index  of  the 
relative  success  of  low  and  high  I.  0.  in  those  tests.  Then  the 
two  indices  were  compared.  Theoretically,  if  the  achievement  of 
low  and  high  I.  Q.  is  nearer  together  in  the  perceptual  tests  than 
in  the  symbol  tests  (as  would  naturally  be  the  case  if  the  theory 
of  the  levels  is  true),  then  the  index  as  obtained  above  for  the 
perceptual  tests  would  be  expected  to  be  smaller  than  that  ob¬ 
tained  for  the  symbol  tests.  A  sample  of  how  such  an  index  is 
obtained  is  given  in  Table  VII,  and  a  combined  table  of  a  num¬ 
ber  of  such  indices  is  shown  in  Table  VIII. 

Table  VII 

Contrast  of  Achievement  of  Low  and  High  I.  Q.  in  Perceptual 

and  Symbol  Tests. 


Chronological  Ages  io  and  n 
Perceptual  Tests  Symbol  Tests 


Low  I.  Q. 


Low  I.  Q. 


Scores  Me-  Scores 


Case 

IQ. 

Score  Ranked  dian 

Index 

Score  Ranked 

4-2 

88 

79 

79 

97 

74 

4-1 1 

88 

120 

85 

87 

74 

4-17 

89 

109 

95 

123 

76 

4-32 

91 

95 

98 

99 

87 

100.5 

4-61 

90 

103 

103 

76 

97 

4-64 

9i 

98 

109 

74 

99 

5-6i 

88 

1 12 

112 

101 

101 

5-65 

9i 

85 

120 

74 

123 

•930 

High  I.  Q. 

High  I.  Q. 

4-1 

108 

96 

95 

84 

73 

4-5 

126 

100 

96 

129 

84 

4-9 

126 

hi 

100 

128 

93 

4-23 

138 

106 

100 

146 

no 

4-30 

114 

117 

100 

93 

119 

4-33 

121 

hi 

100 

no 

121 

4-38 

112 

107 

101 

135 

128 

4-40 

1 19 

113 

104 

132 

129 

4-47 

112 

100 

106 

119 

132 

4-5i 

112 

100 

106 

73 

135 

4-57 

116 

hi 

107 

147 

143 

108 

5-7 

152 

hi 

109 

174 

146 

5-22 

151 

1 19 

hi 

194 

147 

5-32 

11 3 

101 

hi 

169 

150 

5-4i 

126 

106 

hi 

150 

156 

5-44 

116 

104 

hi 

121 

162 

5-46 

143 

114 

113 

156 

167 

5-47 

hi 

109 

1 14 

143 

169 

5-54 

136 

95 

1 17 

162 

174 

5-7i 

162 

100 

119 

167 

182 

6-24 

M3 

141 

138 

197 

194 

7-67 

122 

138 

141 

182 

197 

Me¬ 

dian 


92 


144-5 


Index 


.636 


82 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  VIII 

Contrast  of  Achievement  of  Low  and  High  I.  Q.  in  Perceptual 

and  Smybol  Tests 

Perceptual  Tests  Symbol  Tests 


Median  Index 

Median 

Index 

Chronological  Ages  10  and  11 

Low  I.  Q. 

100.5 

92.0 

•930 

.636 

High  I.  Q. 

108.0 

144.5 

Chronological  Ages  11  and  12 

Low  I.  Q. 

98.0 

99.0 

.875 

.60 

High  I.  Q. 

1 1 2.0 

165.0 

Chronological  Ages  12  and  13 

Low  I.  Q. 

103.5 

104.5 

.821 

.60 

High  I.  Q. 

126.0 

174.0 

Chronological  Ages  13  and  14 

Low  I.  Q. 

III.O 

121.0 

.834 

.679 

High  I.  Q. 

1330 

178.0 

It  is  clear  from  the  above  table  that  in  this  study  the  ratio 
(index)  of  achievement  of  low  and  high  I.  Q.  is  nearer  to  unity 
in  every  case  for  the  perceptual  tests  than  for  the  symbol  tests. 
This  is  what  would  be  expected  if  low  and  high  I.  Q.  are  nearer 
together  in  achievement  on  the  perceptual  than  on  the  symbol 
level. 

This  study  therefore  consists  in : 

(1)  Quantitative  determination  of  the  intelligence  of  a  given 
group. 

(2)  Verifying  the  result  by  means  of  teachers’  judgments. 

(3)  Testing  the  same  group  by  means  of  (a)  a  number  of  tests 
which  are  primarily  perceptual,  and  (b)  a  number  of  tests  which 
are  primarily  symbolic. 

(4)  Comparison  of  perceptual-test  results,  and  symbol-test  re¬ 
sults,  on  the  basis  of  the  criterion. 

This  comparison  is  made  (a)  through  correlation  and  (b) 

through  the  computation  of  an  index  denoting  per  cent  of 

capacity. 

By  this  process  it  is  found  (1)  that  symbol  tests  surpass  per¬ 
ceptual  tests  in  power  of  discrimination  of  degrees  of  intelligence, 
and  (2)  that  achievement  of  high  and  low  intelligence  is  much 
closer  together  in  perceptual  than  in  symbol  material. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


83 


The  conclusion  is  made  that  the  study  offers  evidence  in  favor 
of  the  theory  of  intelligence  levels  based  upon  an  analysis  of 
qualitative  differences  in  judgment  regarded  as  a  mental  “com¬ 
mon  factor.” 

2.  In  lower  school  grades. 

This  study  is  of  the  same  form  as  the  other  one  except  that 
the  validity  of  the  Binet  mental  ages  and  intelligence  quotients 
is  assumed  without  the  checking  by  teachers’  estimates  of  intelli¬ 
gence.  This  assumption  was  felt  to  be  justified  because  the  whole 
procedure  of  determining  the  Binet  results  was  the  same  as  that 
used  in  the  first  study,  and  it  seems  safe  to  believe  that  the  same 
validity  is  present. 

The  value  of  a  second  study  lies  in  the  confirmatory  evidence 
which  it  furnishes.  It  would  be  expected  that  the  same  results  as 
to  correlations  and  indices  of  relationship  between  the  achieve¬ 
ment  of  low  and  high  I.  Q.  could  be  looked  for,  but  with  the  addi¬ 
tional  feature  that  the  contrasts  based  upon  differences  in  achieve¬ 
ment  in  perceptual  and  in  symbol  tests  would  be  expected  to  be  less 
pronounced  as  a  whole  in  the  lower  than  in  upper  grades.  This  is 
so  because  if  the  theory  of  the  levels  is  true,  children  of  all  grades 
of  endowment  will  differ  less  in  early  years  before  the  power  of 
abstraction  in  any  of  them  has  had  the  chance  for  development, 
and  consequent  differentiation,  which  comes  in  later  years.  The 
following  data  will  show  how  this  theory  works  out.  Table  I 
gives  Binet  data  (to  be  used  as  before  as  criterion)  on  135  lower 
grade  cases. 


Table  I 


Original  Data:  Abbreviated  Binet  in  Lower  Grades. 


Case 

Born 

Tested 

Second  Grade 

M.A. 

I.Q. 

1 

7/22/12 

1/19/20 

7-  6 

100 

2 

11/19/12 

1 / 19/20 

7-  9 

108 

3 

5/19/03 

1 / 14/20 

6-  6 

98 

4 

1 2/  9/1 1 

1/16/20 

7-  0 

87 

5 

6/  6/1 1 

1 / 14/20 

9-  1 

106 

6 

10/24/12 

1 / 14/20 

7-  3 

100 

7 

7/17/12 

1/16/20 

7-  9 

103 

8 

12/23/11 

1/13/20 

8-  3 

102 

9 

4/20/12 

1/13/20 

7-  9 

100 

10 

6/20/12 

1/12/20 

7-  6 

99 

11 

2/22/12 

1 / 12/20 

6-  9 

85 

12 

1/12/11 

1/16/20 

6-  3 

69 

84 

Ca; 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1 7 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

3i 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  I  (Continued) 


Born 

Tested 

M.A. 

I.Q. 

Second 

Grade  (Continued) 

3/30/13 

2/  2/20 

7-  9 

113 

5/  3/i2 

1/16/20 

7-  9 

100 

1/21/12 

1 / 14/20 

6-  9 

85 

12/  6/12 

1/ 14/20 

7-  3 

102 

1/  8/12 

1 / 14/20 

7-  9 

96 

7/26/12 

1/16/20 

7-  6 

100 

8/23/1 2 

1/16/20 

8-  9 

117 

8/11/11 

1/21/20 

9-  6 

112 

8/24/12 

1 / 19/20 

8-  3 

hi 

1/31/10 

1/2 1/20 

8-  9 

88 

10/27/11 

1/21/20 

8-  0 

98 

2/28/12 

1/22/20 

8-  6 

107 

1/11/13 

1/22/20 

9-  0 

128 

8/  1/11 

1/22/20 

9-  0 

106 

12/10/12 

1/  4/20 

8-  6 

120 

5/26/12 

1/20/20 

8-  3 

107 

6/24/12 

1/23/20 

6-  3 

82 

7/14/12 

1/22/20 

8-  6 

113 

1/29/13 

1/23/20 

9-  0 

127 

4/  6/1 1 

1/30/20 

8-  0 

9i 

7/15/1 1 

1/23/20 

8-  3 

97 

10/13/n 

1/23/20 

7-  3 

87 

2/20/12 

1/22/20 

7-  9 

98 

5/ 10/ 1 1 

1/22/20 

9-  1 

105 

6/  7/1 1 

1/22/20 

9-  1 

105 

5/  9/i 1 

1/22/20 

9-  0 

105 

5/  i/ii 

1/22/20 

8-  9 

100 

8/  8/10 

1/22/20 

7-  3 

77 

6/  8/10 

1/22/20 

8-  1 

83 

3/24/12 

1/22/20 

8-10 

112 

4/  2/11 

1/22/20 

9-  0 

102 

3/  2/12 

1/22/20 

9-  4 

117 

5/  9/12 

2/  2/20 

9-  0 

116 

2/21/12 

1/22/20 

8-  0 

IOI 

1/30/ 1 2 

2/  2/20 

8-  3 

103 

10/  3/1 1 

1/16/20 

8-10 

107 

9/23/1 1 

1/  4/20 

8-  0 

96 

7/ 12/12 

1/22/20 

8-  3 

109 

9/27/ 1 1 

1/22/20 

8-  3 

99 

2/ 18/ 12 

1/22/20 

7-  3 

92 

5/29/12 

1/30/20 

8-  0 

105 

Third  Grade 


12/28/10 

1/19/20 

8-  6 

94 

8/  1/11 

1 / 14/20 

11-  4-5 

135 

6/  7/ 1 1 

1/16/20 

9-  9 

H3 

3/26/11 

1/15/20 

9-  0 

102 

8/28/11 

1/20/20 

10-  4 

122 

12/13/11 

1/16/20 

9-  0 

hi 

5/10/12 

1/20/20 

8-  3 

107 

3/28/11 

1 / 14/20 

11-  4 

128 

10/16/10 

1/16/20 

10-  5 

112 

1 0/29/ 1 1 

1/14/20 

7-  3 

87 

11/  1/11 

1/20/20 

8-  3 

IOI 

9/10/10 

1/20/20 

11-  3 

120 

MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


85 


Table  I  (Continued) 


Case 

Born 

Third 

Tested 

Grade  (Continued) 

M.A. 

I.Q. 

66 

4/28/11 

1/20/20 

7-  9 

88 

67 

12/19/11 

1/20/20 

9-  7 

1 19 

68 

4/  6/1 1 

1/16/20 

8-  9 

100 

69 

1/27/ 10 

1/ 16/20 

9-  4 

93 

70 

8/30/11 

1 / 19/20 

9-  0 

107 

7i 

11/  1/11 

1/20/20 

8-  9 

106 

72 

2/25/11 

1 / 19/20 

8-  9 

99 

73 

2/25/n 

1/20/20 

12-  9-5 

143 

74 

5/23/12 

1/19/20 

11-  0.5 

144 

75 

7/23/12 

1 / 19/20 

9-  6 

126 

76 

4/  1/10 

1/16/20 

10-  1 

102 

77 

2/16/12 

1/20/20 

9-  0 

1 13 

78 

12/12/n 

1/14/20 

6-  9 

83 

79 

2/  3/1 1 

1/16/20 

9-  1 

102 

80 

7/  3/io 

1/16/20 

10-  2 

107 

81 

2/  4/1 1 

1 / 19/20 

10-  4 

1 16 

82 

7/21/n 

1/16/20 

9-  3 

109 

83 

9/26/10 

1 / 13/20 

8-  6 

9i 

84 

3/24/10 

1 / 19/20 

8-  3 

84 

85 

7/16/12 

1/ 19/20 

10-  9 

143 

86 

ii/io/io 

1 /i 5/20 

9-  4 

102 

87 

9/19/10 

1/16/20 

9-  6 

102 

88 

8/30/10 

1/20/20 

10-  0 

106 

89 

7/29/1 I 

1/15/20 

8-  9 

103 

90 

7/25/10 

1 / 12/20 

10-  9 

H3 

9i 

I 2/  8/08 

1/14/20 

12-  5-5 

112 

92 

7/16/10 

1/ 15/20 

10-  1 

106 

93 

7/  1/10 

1/13/20 

9-11 

104 

94 

10/  2/10 

1/15/20 

9-  3 

100 

95 

11/24/08 

1/13/20 

9-11 

88 

96 

4/13/10 

1/15/20 

n-10.5 

122 

97 

10/30/09 

1/15/20 

9-  7 

93 

98 

12/  4/08 

1/13/20 

IO-II 

98 

99 

3/16/10 

1 /i 3/20 

9-  5 

95 

100 

1/30/10 

1/14/20 

10-  5 

105 

101 

2/22/09 

1 / 12/20 

10-  9 

99 

102 

9/19/10 

1/12/20 

9-  0 

96 

103 

4/14/10 

1 / 15/20 

8-  6 

87 

104 

3/20/1 I 

1 / 14/20 

11-  4-5 

129 

105 

6/28/09 

1 / 13/20 

9-  6 

90 

106 

I 1/27/09 

1/13/20 

8-  6 

83 

107 

2/  4/1 I 

1/13/20 

11-  6 

129 

108 

5/19/10 

1/13/20 

10-  9 

in 

109 

12/28/09 

1/ 13/20 

10-  6 

105 

no 

3/10/09 

1/ 14/20 

10-  8 

98 

III 

11/ I 2/ 10 

1 / 14/20 

10-  9 

117 

1 12 

I 1/20/ 10 

1/13/20 

9-  7 

103 

1 13 

6/12/10 

1 / 15/20 

10-  4 

107 

1 14 

7/29/10 

1/14/20 

10-  2 

106 

115 

8/17/10 

1 / 14/20 

9-  8 

103 

Il6 

3/  2/1 I 

1/13/20 

10-  8 

120 

117 

5/  5/10 

1 / 14/20 

10-  1 

104 

1 18 

n/19/09 

1 / 19/20 

9-  7 

94 

86  JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  I  (Continued) 
Fourth  Grade 


Case 

Born 

Tested 

M.  A. 

I.Q. 

1 19 

8/14/10 

1/28/20 

10-  9.5 

115 

120 

1/  2/10 

2/  2/20 

11-  0 

109 

121 

9/12/08 

1 1/20/ 19 

10-  8 

95 

122 

5/28/08 

n/19/19 

10-  2 

89 

123 

5/27/08 

11/21/19 

9-  4 

81 

124 

7/  6/08 

2/  2/20 

10-  5 

90 

125 

11/10/10 

1/27/20 

14-  5 

155 

126 

12/28/08 

2/  2/20 

10-  1 

9i 

127 

4/  1/09 

1/28/20 

10-  8 

98 

128 

11/22/09 

1/27/20 

14-  3-5 

140 

129 

11/10/08 

1/27/20 

9-1 1 

88 

130 

8/11/07 

11/19/19 

9-  0 

73 

131 

6/  6/ 11 

1/28/20 

10-  8 

123 

132 

12/15/08 

1/26/20 

9-  3 

83 

133 

7/26/09 

2/  3/20 

11-20 

113 

134 

10/18/09 

1/26/20 

9-1 1 

97 

135 

4/iS/io 

2/  2/20 

10-  5 

106 

After  the  Binet  data  appearing  in  Table  I  had  been  obtained, 
there  was  given,  as  before,  a  group  test  consisting  of  single  tests, 
part  of  which  were  primarily  perceptual  and  part  symbol.  The 
perceptual  tests  were  (i)  symbol  digit,  (2)  picture  completion, 
(3)  maze,  (4)  pictorial  sequence,  and  (5)  pictorial  identities. 
These  were  simply  different  standardized  forms  of  the  same  type 
of  tests  used  in  the  first  study,  except  for  the  familiar  maze  test 
which  does  not  need  description.  The  symbol  tests  were  (1) 
practical  judgment,  (2)  opposites,  (3)  vocabulary. 

Of  the  135  cases  for  which  Binet  data  are  given,  134  took  the 
tests  just  listed,  except  that  because  of  an  epidemic  it  was  possi¬ 
ble  to  give  the  vocabulary  test  to  but  hi  cases.  Raw  data  for 
these  cases  appear  in  Table  II. 


Table  II 


Raw 

Data 

for  Five 

Perceptual  and  Three  Symbol  Tests. 

Second 

Grade 

Perceptual  Tests 

Symbol  Tests 

Case 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Total 

6 

7 

8 

Total 

1 

6 

11 

0 

1 

1 

19 

4 

4 

2 

5 

10 

4 

6 

6 

3i 

6 

0 

6 

12 

3 

5 

7 

3 

4 

1 

20 

6 

6 

3 

15 

4 

7 

9 

6 

3 

9 

34 

5 

8 

10 

23 

5 

8 

10 

8 

7 

7 

40 

7 

6 

3 

16 

6 

3 

8 

5 

4 

2 

22 

0 

0 

7 

0 

11 

7 

4 

2 

24 

4 

5 

10 

19 

8 

7 

11 

6 

6 

5 

35 

2 

0 

9 

4 

8 

1 

0 

1 

14 

6 

3 

8 

17 

10 

6 

8 

1 

0 

2 

17 

0 

0 

0 

0 

11 

2 

3 

0 

1 

1 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


87 


Table  II  (Continued) 
Second  Grade 


Perceptual  Tests  Symbol  Tests 


Case 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Total 

6 

7 

8 

Total 

12 

5 

8 

2 

1 

2 

18 

0 

6 

2 

8 

13 

5 

9 

5 

2 

1 

22 

4 

5 

7 

16 

14 

6 

2 

3 

4 

1 

16 

0 

4 

6 

10 

15 

6 

6 

0 

6 

4 

22 

0 

0 

16 

7 

11 

0 

5 

1 

24 

5 

6 

17 

6 

4 

7 

6 

2 

25 

3 

6 

8 

17 

iS 

7 

7 

0 

6 

1 

21 

0 

0 

5 

5 

19 

8 

10 

8 

5 

9 

40 

5 

5 

9 

19 

20 

7 

10 

5 

7 

3 

32 

10 

5 

8 

23 

21 

7 

9 

5 

6 

7 

34 

8 

7 

8 

23 

22 

7 

6 

4 

4 

1 

22 

6 

4 

0 

10 

23 

8 

8 

5 

2 

1 

24 

5 

6 

12 

23 

24 

6 

11 

7 

4 

6 

34 

10 

4 

9 

23 

25 

6 

9 

6 

6 

7 

34 

8 

9 

9 

26 

26 

6 

9 

8 

4 

6 

33 

5 

5 

2 

12 

27 

4 

9 

5 

5 

3 

26 

9 

3 

3 

15 

28 

7 

9 

5 

6 

3 

30 

7 

5 

29 

7 

6 

7 

4 

4 

28 

4 

5 

8 

1 7 

30 

6 

9 

2 

6 

7 

30 

2 

7 

13 

22 

3i 

9 

6 

3 

6 

6 

30 

5 

3 

12 

20 

32 

3 

12 

6 

7 

2 

30 

5 

3 

4 

12 

33 

6 

7 

0 

7 

5 

25 

7 

5 

17 

29 

34 

8 

2 

0 

4 

1 

15 

5 

6 

5 

16 

35 

3 

9 

4 

I 

2 

19 

3 

2 

4 

9 

36 

8 

8 

7 

4 

9 

36 

0 

6 

13 

19 

37 

7 

11 

7 

7 

6 

38 

8 

6 

3 

1 7 

38 

7 

10 

6 

7 

2 

32 

7 

6 

14 

27 

39 

7 

10 

6 

7 

0 

30 

0 

5 

13 

18 

40 

7 

6 

4 

3 

2 

22 

3 

4 

8 

15 

41 

8 

9 

8 

7 

7 

39 

4 

3 

6 

13 

42 

4 

11 

7 

5 

9 

36 

4 

4 

4 

12 

43 

6 

8 

6 

6 

4 

30 

7 

4 

13 

24 

44 

0 

10 

5 

6 

.  5 

26 

3 

4 

20 

27 

45 

8 

12 

5 

5 

2 

32 

9 

8 

17 

34 

46 

6 

6 

0 

2 

2 

16 

2 

4 

12 

18 

47 

9 

9 

5 

5 

3 

3i 

9 

3 

48 

8 

9 

2 

7 

8 

34 

7 

6 

8 

21 

49 

7 

10 

7 

7 

0 

3i 

5 

6 

14 

25 

50 

7 

10 

2 

5 

3 

27 

0 

0 

1 

I 

51 

7 

11 

6 

6 

4 

34 

0 

2 

12 

14 

52 

7 

6 

1 

5 

5 

24 

5 

6 

6 

17 

53 

9 

10 

3 

7 

8 

37 

9 

7 

12 

28 

Third  Grade 

54 

6 

10 

6 

5 

9 

36 

9 

7 

11 

27 

55 

7 

12 

9 

5 

9 

4i 

8 

6 

12 

26 

56 

8 

12 

3 

6 

8 

37 

10 

9 

57 

6 

7 

4 

3 

5 

25 

8 

6 

13 

27 

58 

10 

10 

7 

6 

5 

38 

7 

6 

13 

26 

59 

0 

9 

4 

4 

0 

1 7 

8 

5 

9 

22 

60 

6 

8 

7 

5 

8 

34 

8 

7 

61 

6 

11 

4 

6 

5 

32 

9 

8 

62 

7 

12 

8 

4 

4 

35 

9 

7 

20 

36 

63 

8 

11 

8 

5 

4 

36 

6 

4 

20 

30 

88 

Case 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

7 1 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

9i 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

IIO 

III 

1 12 

11 3 

1 14 

1 15 

116 

117 

1 18 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Table  II  (Continued) 
Third  Grade  (Continued) 


Perceptual  Tests  Symbol  Tests 


I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Total 

6 

7 

8 

Total 

9 

10 

8 

5 

7 

39 

5 

7 

14 

26 

8 

9 

4 

4 

9 

34 

10 

9 

13 

32 

9 

7 

3 

5 

7 

3i 

8 

8 

12 

28 

8 

11 

4 

7 

6 

36 

9 

4 

15 

28 

8 

12 

7 

7 

4 

38 

10 

6 

10 

26 

6 

12 

6 

7 

9 

40 

7 

3 

17 

27 

6 

8 

5 

5 

7 

31 

9 

6 

9 

11 

6 

7 

7 

40 

8 

6 

16 

7 

12 

7 

7 

8 

41 

10 

3 

29 

8 

10 

6 

7 

7 

38 

10 

10 

26 

46 

8 

12 

7 

6 

9 

4 2 

10 

9 

1 7 

36 

5 

10 

3 

2 

9 

29 

9 

6 

9 

24 

7 

11 

5 

7 

4 

34 

8 

9 

7 

10 

7 

7 

5 

36 

6 

9 

17 

32 

0 

10 

7 

5 

7 

29 

6 

5 

13 

24 

6 

12 

5 

6 

8 

37 

6 

9 

8 

11 

9 

7 

7 

42 

9 

7 

20 

36 

9 

11 

7 

7 

9 

43 

10 

7 

9 

26 

8 

11 

8 

5 

6 

38 

9 

6 

25 

40 

3 

9 

4 

5 

6 

27 

8 

5 

13 

26 

9 

12 

9 

6 

1 

37 

9 

4 

13 

26 

8 

8 

6 

5 

9 

36 

10 

8 

22 

40 

8 

12 

4 

7 

7 

38 

9 

7 

9 

25 

8 

10 

9 

5 

8 

40 

7 

6 

17 

30 

5 

8 

6 

0 

0 

19 

8 

6 

22 

36 

10 

10 

9 

7 

6 

42 

9 

8 

19 

36 

11 

11 

7 

6 

8 

43 

9 

9 

13 

3i 

9 

11 

10 

7 

9 

46 

10 

9 

10 

29 

8 

11 

7 

7 

9 

42 

8 

7 

20 

35 

6 

11 

4 

6 

7 

34 

8 

6 

18 

32 

10 

12 

8 

7 

7 

44 

9 

6 

15 

30 

8 

9 

6 

7 

7 

37 

8 

4 

20 

32 

11 

11 

7 

7 

8 

44 

10 

8 

20 

38 

6 

7 

6 

7 

8 

34 

10 

7 

19 

36 

10 

11 

6 

7 

A 

38 

7 

7 

23 

37 

7 

12 

8 

7 

7 

4i 

10 

4 

7 

21 

8 

10 

9 

7 

5 

39 

10 

7 

8 

11 

6 

7 

6 

38 

9 

9 

13 

3i 

9 

12 

6 

7 

7 

4i 

10 

7 

15 

32 

8 

11 

8 

7 

5 

39 

9 

5 

20 

34 

10 

10 

8 

7 

8 

43 

10 

8 

19 

37 

8 

12 

6 

7 

8 

4i 

8 

7 

21 

36 

9 

10 

6 

6 

1 

32 

5 

7 

7 

10 

7 

7 

8 

39 

9 

7 

7 

9 

6 

7 

5 

34 

10 

7 

26 

43 

7 

11 

8 

7 

8 

41 

8 

5 

7 

7 

7 

5 

6 

32 

6 

5 

20 

3i 

8 

11 

4 

5 

1 

29 

8 

7 

9 

11 

9 

6 

9 

44 

9 

8 

17 

34 

5 

11 

6 

7 

8 

37 

9 

7 

8 

10 

6 

7 

7 

38 

9 

8 

17 

34 

9 

11 

7 

7 

7 

41 

8 

8 

21 

37 

7 

10 

1 

7 

8 

33 

8 

8 

17 

33 

8 

10 

6 

6 

7 

37 

9 

5 

8 

10 

3 

7 

7 

35 

9 

7 

MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT  89 

Table  II  (Continued) 

Fourth  Grade 


Perceptual  Tests  Symbol  Tests 


Case 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Total 

6 

7 

8 

Total 

121 

8 

10 

7 

7 

4 

36 

7 

9 

11 

27 

122 

7 

11 

5 

7 

9 

39 

8 

6 

18 

32 

123 

7 

9 

0 

6 

7 

29 

8 

4 

16 

28 

124 

10 

12 

9 

6 

8 

45 

9 

8 

14 

3i 

125 

7 

12 

9 

7 

8 

43 

10 

9 

22 

4i 

126 

9 

11 

9 

7 

4 

40 

9 

6 

20 

35 

127 

7 

11 

8 

7 

8 

4i 

8 

10 

19 

37 

128 

7 

10 

3 

7 

1 

28 

10 

7 

23 

40 

129 

9 

10 

9 

6 

7 

4i 

9 

9 

14 

32 

131 

9 

11 

9 

7 

9 

45 

6 

7 

1 7 

30 

132 

10 

9 

3 

6 

I 

2  9 

8 

8 

14 

30 

133 

1 2 

11 

6 

7 

9 

45 

10 

9 

19 

38 

134 

9 

12 

6 

7 

6 

40 

10 

7 

21 

38 

135 

9 

10 

5 

6 

4 

34 

8 

2 

19 

29 

On  the  theory  expressed  at  the  beginning  of  this  second  study 
that  the  contrast  between  high  and  low  I.  Q.  would  be  less  in 
lower  than  in  upper  grades,  one  would  expect  to  find  coefficients 
of  correlation  for  perceptual  tests  and  for  symbol  tests  not  quite 
so  far  apart  as  they  were  in  the  upper  grade  study,  although  he 
would  still  expect  to  find  that  the  symbol  tests  correlated  higher 
with  mental  age  than  the  perceptual  tests  did.  Examination  of 
data  in  Table  III  (below)  will  show  to  what  degree  this  expecta¬ 
tion  is  realized. 


Table  III 

Correlation  of  the  Individual  and  the  Combined  Group  Tests  with 

Mental  Age  (Binet). 


I.  Perceptual  Tests  II.  Symbol  Tests 


I.  Symbol  Digit . 

. 39 

I.  Practical  Judgment  .... 

II.  Picture  Completion  .... 

. 46 

II.  Opposites  . 

. 56 

III.  Maze  . . 

. 39 

III.  Vocabulary  . * . 

. 72 

IV.  Pictorial  Sequence  .... 

. 47 

V.  Pictorial  Identities  . . . 

. 39 

Total  Perceptual  . 

. 58 

Total  Symbol . 

. 72 

Comparison  of  this  table  with  Table  V  of  the  first  study  shows 
that  the  predicted  tendency  for  the  correlation  coefficients  to  run 
lower  in  lower  grades  is  present  especially  in  the  battery  of  per¬ 
ceptual  tests  as  compared  with  the  battery  of  symbol  tests. 
Neither  battery  shows  so  high  a  correlation  as  was  shown  by  the 
corresponding  battery  in  the  first  study.  The  relative  relationship 
is,  however,  the  same.  The  perceptual  tests  are  always  lower. 


90 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


The  vocabulary  test  in  this  table  shows  again  the  highest  correla¬ 
tion  found  for  any  single  test,  but  not  quite  so  high  as  in  the  for¬ 
mer  study.  All  of  this  is  significant,  but  it  still  needs  to  be  re¬ 
inforced  by  the  computation  of  the  index  showing  per  cent  of 
capacity  in  the  two  types  of  tests. 

As  before,  in  making  these  contrasts,  the  cases  were  first  dis¬ 
tributed  by  chronological  age  and  I.  Q. 


Table  IV 

Chronological  Age  and  Binet  I.  Q. 


Case 

7  yrs. 

IQ. 

Case 

8  yrs. 

I.Q. 

Case 

9  yrs. 

I.Q. 

I 

7-6 

100 

4 

8-1 

87 

12 

9-0 

69 

2 

7-2 

108 

5 

8-7 

106 

22 

9-11 

88 

6 

7-3 

100 

8 

8-1 

102 

40 

9-5 

77 

7 

7-6 

103 

15 

8-0 

85 

4i 

9-7 

83 

9 

7-9 

100 

1 7 

8-0 

96 

54 

9-i 

94 

10 

7-7 

99 

20 

8-5 

112 

62 

9-3 

1 12 

ii 

7- 11 

85 

23 

8-2 

98 

65 

9-4 

120 

14 

7-8 

100 

26 

8-6 

106 

76 

9-10 

102 

16 

7-i 

102 

32 

8-9 

91 

80 

9-6 

107 

18 

7-6 

100 

33 

8-6 

97 

83 

9-4 

91 

19 

7-5 

11 7 

34 

8-4 

87 

84 

9-10 

84 

21 

7-5 

hi 

36 

8-8 

105 

86 

9-2 

102 

24 

7- 11 

107 

37 

8-8 

105 

87 

9-4 

102 

25 

7-o 

128 

38 

8-8 

105 

88 

9-5 

106 

27 

7-i 

120 

39 

8-9 

100 

90 

9-6 

113 

28 

7-8 

107 

43 

8-10 

102 

92 

9-6 

106 

29 

7-7 

82 

47 

8-0 

103 

93 

9-6 

104 

30 

7-6 

113 

48 

8-3 

107 

94 

9-3 

100 

3i 

7-o 

127 

49 

8-4 

96 

96 

9-9 

122 

35 

7- 11 

98 

5i 

8-4 

99 

99 

9-10 

95 

42 

7-10 

112 

55 

8-5 

135 

100 

9-11 

105 

44 

7-1 1 

11 7 

56 

8-7 

11 3 

102 

9-4 

96 

45 

7-9 

1 16 

57 

8-10 

102 

103 

9-9 

87 

46 

7- 11 

101 

58 

8-5 

122 

108 

9-8 

hi 

50 

7-6 

109 

59 

8-1 

hi 

hi 

9-2 

117 

52 

7- 11 

92 

61 

8-10 

128 

112 

9-2 

105 

53 

7-7 

105 

63 

8-3 

87 

113 

9-7 

107 

60 

7-8 

107 

64 

8-2 

101 

1 14 

9-6 

106 

74 

7-8 

144 

66 

8-9 

88 

ii5 

9-5 

103 

75 

7-6 

126 

67 

8-1 

1 19 

117 

9-8 

104 

77 

7-i  1 

113 

68 

8-9 

100 

1 19 

9-5 

115 

85 

7-6 

143 

70 

8-5 

107 

125 

9-3 

155 

7 1 

8-3 

106 

135 

9-10 

106 

72 

8-10 

99 

73 

8-11 

143 

78 

8-1 

83 

79 

8-1 1 

102 

81 

8-11 

116 

82 

8-6 

109 

89 

8-6 

103 

104 

8-10 

129 

107 

8-1 1 

129 

116 

8-10 

120 

r 

131 

8-8 

123 

MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


9i 


The  contrasts  which  follow  are  based  upon  an  analysis  of  score 
(for  the  data  see  Table  II)  and  chronological  age  and  I.  Q.  (for 
data  see  Table  IV).  The  method  is  the  same  as  that  used  in  the 
first  study. 

Table  V 

Contrast  of  Achievement  of  Low  and  High  I.  Q.  in  Perceptual 


and  Symbol  Tests. 
Perceptual  Tests 

Symbol  Tests 

Median  Index 

Median  Index 

Low  I.  Q. 

Chronological  Ages  7  and  8 
29.5 

20.0 

.843 

.769 

High  I.  Q. 

35-0 

26.0 

Low  I.  Q. 

Chronological  Ages  8  and  9 
30.0 

23.0 

.789 

.718 

High  I.  Q. 

38.0 

32.0 

Indices 

for  other  contrasts  are  as  follows: 

(Index  for  total 

perceptual  tests  differs  from  that  just  given  above  because  dif¬ 


ferent  number  of  cases  were  used). 


Perceptual  Tests 

Index 

Yrs.  7,  8  .805 

Yrs.  8,  9  .786 


Table  VI 


Symbol  Tests  6  and  7 
Index 
.666 
.656 


Perceptual  Tests 

Index 

Yrs.  7,  8  .843 

Yrs.  8,  9  .789 


Symbol  Tests  8  alone 
Index 
.720 
.588 


In  all  of  these  contrasts  the  index  for  symbol  tests  is  smaller 
than  that  for  perceptual  tests.  This  showing  is  therefore  in  all 
cases  favorable  to  the  original  proposition  that  the  achievement 
of  low  and  high  intelligence  would  be  found  closer  together  on 
the  perceptual  than  on  the  symbol  level.  It  should  be  noted,  how¬ 
ever,  that  the  contrasts  in  these  lower  grades  tend  to  be  narrower 
than  the  ones  previously  shown  for  upper  grades.  This  is  in  line 
with  the  theory  previously  expressed  that  mere  age  itself  (as  well 
as  difference  in  high  and  low  I.  Q.)  makes  a  difference  in  achieve¬ 
ment  in  perceptual  tests  contrasted  with  symbol  tests. 

The  study  therefore  consists  in  the  same  steps  as  those  out- 


92 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


lined  for  the  first  study,  and  the  conclusion  from  it  is  the 
same,  with  additional  evidence  of  the  relationship  of  high  and  low 
school  grade  achievement.  Thus  it  seems  that  the  quantitative 
data  presented  in  the  two  studies  strengthen  the  conclusion  pre¬ 
viously  arrived  at  through  the  theoretical  survey  of  the  field,  and 
through  the  examination  of  evidences  in  the  work  of  other  inves¬ 
tigators.  It  is  fully  appreciated  that  the  number  of  cases  used 
has  been  relatively  small,  and  that  the  evidence  furnished  cannot 
be  conceived  to  be  finally  conclusive.  It  is  believed,  however,  that 
the  evidence  is  now  strong  enough  to  warrant  a  definite  convic¬ 
tion  that  further  experimentation  will  confirm  the  tendencies 
shown  in  these  studies.  The  relation  of  these  conclusions  to 
theories  of  intelligence  and  of  intelligence  measurement  will  be 
taken  up  in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VI 


Modern  Methods  of  Mental  Measurement 
I.  The  evolution  of  modern  methods. 

I.  A  SUMMATION  OF  MODERN  TENDENCIES 

The  intention  here  is  not  that  of  giving  an  exhaustive  account 
of  every  attempt  which  has  been  made  to  measure  intelligence; 
but  rather  that  of  identifying  significant  modern  movements,  and 
of  pointing  out  definite  tendencies,  which  have  led  to  a  present 
prevailing  attitude  toward  the  problem. 

Previous  to  the  early  years  of  the  twentieth  century,  diagnosis 
of  mental  subnormality  was  made  mostly  either  by  physicians 
from  the  medical  standpoint,  or  by  teachers  from  the  pedagogical 
standpoint.  There  was  very  little  of  the  psychological,  except  as 
it  was  implied  in  the  others.  Moreover,  neither  the  medical  nor 
the  pedagogical  diagnosis  had  much  of  the  exact  quantitative 
about  it;  but  both  were  made  mostly  in  the  form  of  estimate,  per¬ 
sonal  opinion,  or  approximation,  very  much  akin  to  such  estimates 
of  distance  as  those  expressed  in  terms  of  “a  stone’s  throw/’  “a 
day’s  travel,”  etc.  There  were  no  standardized  units  and  there¬ 
fore  no  reliable,  comparable  results.  It  is  true  that  degrees  of 
feeblemindedness  were  discriminated  in  such  words  as  idiot,  im¬ 
becile,  or  the  French  “debile'’;  but  the  patient  called  imbecile  by 
one  physician  might  be  called  idiot  or  debile  by  another.  There 
was  no  common  ground  upon  which  the  diagnosis  was  made. 
The  degrees  of  feeblemindedness  were  named  in  words  of  psycho¬ 
logical  import,  but  were  sometimes  defined  in  physiological  or 
anatomical  terms  (brain  lesion,  control  of  bodily  functions,  mo¬ 
tility,  locomotion,  prehension,  appetite,  respiration,  secretion,  cir¬ 
culation,  or  bodily  stigmata)  and  sometimes  in  terms  of  specific 
mental  functions  (sensation,  perception,  will  attention,  etc.). 

All  of  these  attempts  to  define  feeblemindedness,  and  its  de- 


94 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


grees,  resulted  in  little  attention  to  the  need  for  defining  intelli¬ 
gence,  or  for  getting  at  its  fundamental  nature.  It  was  apparently 
taken  for  granted  that  since  intelligence  is  the  opposite  of  feeble¬ 
mindedness  it  was  therefore  well  enough  understood  what  intelli¬ 
gence  is.  Yet,  both  for  feeblemindedness  and  intelligence,  no 
terms  at  all  would  have  been  safer  than  the  ones  in  use,  because 
the  very  vagueness  of  the  customary  terminology  gave  a  mislead¬ 
ing  impression  of  definitness.  Such  vagueness  even  made  it  pos¬ 
sible  to  confuse  feeblemindedness  (retarded  mentality)  with  in¬ 
sanity  (unbalanced  mentality),  a  thing  which  could  not  happen 
at  the  present  time  except  among  those  entirely  uninitiated  in  the 
field. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  a 
movement  appeared  which  had  in  it  more  of  the  psychological 
and  more  of  the  exact  quantitative.  It  is  now  known,  however, 
that  this  psychological  movement  was  fundamentally  on  the 
wrong  track  in  so  far  as  intelligence  was  concerned,  although  it- 
had  in  it  something  which  has  survived.  The  movement  in  ques¬ 
tion  showed  two  aspects :  ( i )  the  determination  of  intelligence 

through  the  exact  laboratory  measurement  of  individual  mental 
and  physical  traits  found  to  be  correlated  with  the  estimates,  opin¬ 
ions,  and  approximations  previously  mentioned;  and  (2)  the  de¬ 
termination  of  intelligence  through  the  summation  of  the  results 
of  exact  quantitative  measurement  of  mental  traits  regarded  as 
elements.  Thus  intelligence  was  tacitly  held  to  be  equal  to  the 
sum  of  one’s  quantitatively  measured  sensation,  perception, 
memory,  etc. 

The  first  of  these  tendencies  (the  correlation  of  intelligence 
with  mental  and  physical  traits)  holds  its  place  today  as  a  val¬ 
uable  supplement  to  the  scientific  measurement  of  intelligence 
itself.  The  second  has  been  discarded  along  with  the  “faculty” 
psychology  out  of  which  it  sprang,  except  that  the  mental  ele¬ 
ment  or  trait,  regarded  as  a  unit-mental  activity,  still  holds  a 
very  important  place  when  viewed  from  a  different  angle. 

However,  the  real  revolution  in  the  definition  and  measure¬ 
ment  of  intelligence  came  when,  through  the  genius  of  Binet,  all 
criteria  of  intelligence  (the  medical  criterion,  the  social  criterion, 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


95 


the  pedagogical  criterion)  were  made  subordinate  to  a  perfected 
quantitative  psychological  criterion  based  upon  the  theory  of  gen¬ 
eral  intelligence.  The  essence  of  this  idea  of  general  intelligence 
has  already  been  given  in  the  quotations  of  a  previous  chapter 
which  deals  with  judgment  as  the  common  factor  in  intel¬ 
ligence  and  with  the  relation  of  the  separate  mental  functions  to 
intelligence.  The  customary  exaggerated  reliance  upon  the  de¬ 
termination  of  amount  of  intelligence  through  its  correlation 
with  mental  and  physical  traits  was  reduced  to  its  rightful  minor 
place,  and  the  attempt  to  determine  the  amount  of  intelligence 
through  the  summation  of  mental  traits  was  shown  to  be  faulty. 
Then  a  relatively  exact  quantitative  scale  for  the  measurement  of 
general  intelligence  was  made.  This  scale  is  too  well  known  to 
need  description  here.  It  was  based  upon  judgment  as  a  common 
factor  in  all  intelligent  acts,  and  although  Binet  did  not  hold  ab¬ 
solutely  to  the  use  of  problems  involving  judgment,  the  follow¬ 
ing  quotation  shows  that,  at  bottom,  that  was  his  intention. 

*  “As  a  result  of  all  this  investigation,  in  the  scale  which  we 
present  we  accord  the  first  place  to  judgment;  that  which  is  of 
importance  to  us  is  not  certain  errors  which  the  subject  commits, 
but  absurd  errors,  which  prove  that  he  lacks  judgment.  We  have 
even  made  special  provision  to  encourage  people  to  make  absurd 
replies.  In  spite  of  the  accuracy  of  this  directing  idea,  it  will  be 
easily  understood  that  it  has  been  impossible  to  permit  of  its 
regulating  exclusively  our  examinations.  For  example,  one  can¬ 
not  make  tests  of  judgment  on  children  of  less  than  two  years 
when  one  begins  to  watch  their  first  gleams  of  intelligence.  Much 
is  gained  when  one  can  discern  in  them  traces  of  coordination,  the 
first  delineation  of  attention  and  memory.  We  shall  therefore 
bring  out  in  our  lists  some  tests  of  memory;  but  so  far  as  we  are 
able,  we  shall  give  these  tests  such  a  turn  as  to  invite  the  subject 
to  make  absurd  replies,  and  thus  under  cover  of  a  test  of  memory, 
we  shall  have  an  appreciation  of  their  judgment.” 

Binet’s  two  proposals  :  ( I )  to  make  exact  quantitative  measure¬ 
ment  of  general  intelligence;  and  (2)  his  later  adopted  plan  of 
grouping  together  at  one  age  all  of  the  tests  normal  for  that  age, 
*The  Development  of  Intelligence,  Vineland  Laboratory,  page  43. 


96 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


have  proved  to  be  the  dominant  features  of  modern  intelligence 
measurement.  The  only  notable  competitor  is  what  is  known  as 
the  “Point  Scale  System' 1  which  adopts  the  idea  of  general  intelli¬ 
gence,  but  rejects  the  chronological-mental  age  classification,  and 
measures  intelligence  in  “points  won”.  But  this  proposal  has  been 
shown  by  Otis  and  by  others  to  be  not  fundamentally  different 
from  the  Binet  method. 

Binet’s  work  was  first  introduced  to  this  country  by  Goddard, 
who  made  an  American  revision  of  it.  Kuhlmann  and  others 
have  also  offered  revisions;  but  the  last  and  easily  the  most  uni¬ 
versally  successful  and  important  is  Terman’s  Stanford  Revision. 

Important  variations  of  the  Binet  plan  appear  in  the  “perfor¬ 
mance  scales”  and  in  group  intelligence  testing.  The  former  have 
been  referred  to  in  previous  chapters,  especially  as  to  their 
relation  to  levels  in  intentionally  controlled  intelligence. 
It  needs  to  be  emphasized  here  that  these  scales,  built  either 
upon  the  Binet  plan  or  upon  the  essentially  similar  “point 
scale”  plan,  have  great  potential  value  for  the  measurement  of 
non-English  speaking  foreigners,  of  the  illiterate,  the  deaf,  etc., 
but  as  general  scales  of  intelligence  they  fail  because  they  fea¬ 
ture,  in  the  main,  the  perceptual  level  only.  Since  it  has  been 
shown  to  be  probable  that  both  high  and  low  intelligence  can  work 
at  this  level,  it  might  be  possible  to  get  differentiation  by  the  use 
of  very  many  graded  and  especially  carefully  standardized  tests; 
but  this  would  not  be  an  economical  method  in  comparison  with 
scales  which  use  more  abstract  material.  Neither  would  it  be 
logical  to  attempt  entirely  to  overcome  the  difficulty  by  compli¬ 
cating  perceptual  tests  with  abstract  factors,  although  under  cer¬ 
tain  conditions  this  approach  is  well  worth  while.  Therefore  the 
performance  scale  is  inadequate  as  a  total  plan  for  grading  intelli¬ 
gence,  but  it  remains  an  essential  subsidiary  element  for  use  under 
certain  special  conditions. 

Examples  of  the  most  commonly  known  of  the  performance 
tests  are  those  of  Pintner  and  Patterson,  Healy,  Knox,  Sten- 
quist,  and  Kent.  The  Porteus  maze  tests  are  of  this  nature 
also ;  but  are  complicated  more  than  some  of  the  others  by  abstract 
requirements.  They  therefore  are  proportionately  valuable,  al- 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


97 


though  the  narrow  range  of  judgment  tested  by  them  makes  it  de¬ 
sirable  that  they  should  be  used  as  an  element  in  a  scale  with  other 
tests  rather  than  by  themselves. 

As  to  modern  group  testing,  it  may  be  said  that  it  was  first 
introduced  by  Otis,  that  it  adapts  for  group  work  certain  tests 
similar  to  the  individual  Binet  tests,  and  that  it  involves  no  new 
principles  antagonistic  to  the  Binet,  although  Otis  suggests  sup¬ 
plementary  mathematical  bases  which  provide  for  what  he  terms 
'‘an  absolute  point  scale”  in  distinction  from  the  point  scale  of 
the  Yerkes-Bridges  type.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  more 
rapid  work  which  the  group  method  permits  makes  it  of  supreme 
importance,  since  it  can  be  used  for  the  bulk  of  the  work  with 
large  numbers  and  the  special  cases  can  then  be  handled  through 
individual  tests. 

Some  of  the  best  known  of  the  group  tests  are  those  of  Otis, 
and  the  army  tests  based  primarily  upon  the  Otis  tests.  The  lat¬ 
ter  show  the  same  tendency  to  divide  into  perceptual  and  symbol 
tests  as  has  already  been  noted  in  the  individual  tests,  and  the  fun¬ 
damental  reason  for  the  division  is  the  same.  Illiterates,  and  for¬ 
eigners  in  the  army  could  not  be  handled  on  the  basis  of  tests  re¬ 
quiring  much  use  of  language.  Hence  the  development  of  the 
army  group  test  Beta,  and  the  utilization  in  the  army  also  of  many 
of  the  individual  performance  tests  of  the  type  of  the  Pintner 
and  Patterson,  Healy,  Stenquist,  Porteus,  and  others.  Other 
group  tests  of  the  same  general  character  as  the  army  tests  are 
the  Pressey  tests,  the  Haggerty  tests,  the  Myers  Mental  Measure, 
the  new  National  Research  Council  tests,  Terman’s  Mental  Abil¬ 
ity  tests  for  grades  VII  to  XII,  etc. 

But  all  mental  measurement  of  today  has  swung  to  the  Binet 
principles,  and  the  Binet  criterion  easily  remains  the  dominating 
force  in  modern  intelligence  measurement.  However,  the  results 
from  the  Binet  tests,  and  their  variations,  are  supplemented  wher¬ 
ever  possible  by  other  psychological,  pedagogical,  and  neurological 
data.  There  is  also,  where  possible,  a  provision  for  retests,  and 
for  a  period  of  observation  of  the  subject  before  the  final  inter¬ 
pretation  is  made  of  the  data.  Persons  with  little  more  than  a 
clerk’s  knowledge  of  the  standard  procedure  can  do  much  in  the 


98 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


gathering  of  data,  but  where  serious  issues  are  involved,  the 
interpretation  calls  for  the  widest  experience  and  training  in  psy¬ 
chology  and  in  the  related  sciences  involved. 

2.  SOME  GENERAL  SIDE  LIGHTS  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE 

MODERN  VIEW. 

But  the  modern  view  has  come  only  as  the  culmination  of  a 
long  conflict  with  the  former  preconceptions  concerning  intelli¬ 
gence.  A  brief  discussion  of  the  most  salient  points  of  this  con¬ 
flict  will  still  further  clarify  the  situation.  There  was  for  a  long 
time  (and  one  might  almost  say  that  there  still  is)  a  tendency 
to  cling  to  the  earlier  medical  and  psychiatric  conceptions  wherein 
the  criteria  of  feeblemindedness  are  expressed  in  physical,  medi¬ 
cal,  social,  or  vague  psychological  terms  rather  than  in  the  more 
definite  concept  of  general  intelligence  and  mental  age.  Binet’s 
work  was  well  along  in  France  by  1908,  yet  in  that  year  “The 
British  Royal  Commission  on  the  Feebleminded”  defined  that 
class  as  “persons  who  may  be  capable  of  earning  a  living  under 
favorable  circumstances,  but  who  are  incapable  from  mental  de¬ 
fect  existing  from  birth  or  from  an  early  age:  (a)  of  competing 
on  equal  terms  with  their  normal  fellows;  or  (b)  of  managing 
themselves  and  their  affairs  with  ordinary  prudence”.  Such  a 
definition,  though  vaguely  psychological  as  well  as  social,  is  open 
to  any  interpretation  which  varying  conditions  and  the  personal 
equation  of  the  physician  or  the  psychiatrist  may  develop.  It  has 
nothing  of  the  stability  which  is  possessed  by  a  mental  age  estab¬ 
lished  through  the  use  of  a  standardized  scale. 

But  even  Tredgold’s  original  formulation  was  of  the  same 
order,  although  it  included  incomplete  cerebral  development 
(psychological  criterion)  as  well  as  mental  defect.  Even  as  late 
as  1914  he  defined  amentia  as  “a  state  of  restricted  potentiality 
for,  or  arrest  of,  cerebral  development,  in  consequence  of  which 
the  person  affected  is  incapable  at  maturity  of  so  adapting  himself 
to  his  environment  or  to  the  requirements  of  the  community,  as 
to  maintain  existence  independently  of  external  support.”  Thus 
in  this  definition  there  is  the  vague  psychological  criterion,  the 
medical  or  physiological  criterion,  the  social  criterion,  and  also 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


99 


the  more  modern  criterion  of  "‘adaptation”;  and  yet  all  are  so 
indefinite  as  not  to  compare  in  any  way  with  more  exact  scientific 
measurement  based  upon  a  standard  psychological  scale. 

There  has  persisted  also  an  effort  to  determine  amount  of  in¬ 
telligence  through  the  correlation  with  bodily  and  mental  traits 
and  through  the  summation  of  mental  traits  measured  quantita¬ 
tively.  The  former  is  valuable  if  recognized  and  given  its  rightful 
subordinate  position.  Much  good  work  has  been  done  along  this 
line  as  supplementary  to  diagnosis  by  the  Binet  and  similar  scales. 

As  to  the  attempt  to  get  at  intelligence  through  the  quantitative 
summation  of  mental  traits,  it  may  be  said  that  this  is  less  and 
less  in  evidence.  Some  of  the  important  places  where  it  has 
tended  to  persist  are  the  profile  method  of  Rossilimo  (1912), 
the  tachistoscopic  method  proposed  by  Netschajeff  (1917),  and 
in  the  Yerkes-Bridges  Point  Scale.  The  authors  of  the  latter 
arrange  tests  according  to  individual  functions,  but  that  part  of 
their  work  has  had  little  emphasis  or  apparent  success  and  the 
scale  has  filled  an  important  place  through  its  resemblance  to  the 
Binet  method,  rather  than  because  of  the  feature  under  discus¬ 
sion.  Indeed  such  an  effort  can  only  have  success  when  the  sub¬ 
ject  is  tested,  not  for  the  amount  of  the  function,  but  for  his 
ability  to  solve  problems  in  terms  of  the  function;  and  although 
this  may  have  really  been  what  the  Yerkes-Bridges  scale  was 
meant  to  do,  the  authors  do  not  make  it  clear  that  such  was  their 
idea. 

3.  CERTAIN  MINOR  AND  MAJOR  VIEWS  AND  STUDIES  IN  CONFIR¬ 
MATION  OF  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  A  COMMON  FACTOR 

FOR  INTELLIGENCE. 

Meumann,  Stern,  and  Ebbinghaus  have,  in  a  general  way, 
presented  the  idea  of  a  common  factor,  particularly  in  the  defini¬ 
tions  which  they  give  of  intelligence.  Meumann,  as  interpreted 
by  Terman,  presents  a  two-fold  definition:  “From  the  psycho¬ 
logical  point  of  view,  intelligence  is  the  power  of  independent  and 
creative  elaboration  of  new  products  out  of  the  material  given  by 
memory  and  the  senses.  From  the  practical  point  of  view,  it  in¬ 
volves  the  ability  to  avoid  error,  to  surmount  difficulties,  and  to 


100 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


adjust  to  environment.”  Stern  says  that  intelligence  is  “the  gen¬ 
eral  capacity  of  an  individual  consciously  to  adjust  his  thinking 
to  new  requirements;  it  is  general  adaptability  to  new  problems 
and  conditions  of  life.”  Ebbinghaus,  as  a  result  of  the  Breslau 
investigation  in  1905,  came  to  take  a  view  of  intelligence  which 
emphasized  the  ability  to  combine  dissociated  elements  into  a 
meaningful  whole.  He  called  this  “combinative  ability”,  and  de¬ 
veloped  a  tentative  method  for  testing  it,  through  asking  the 
subject  to  fill  in  elisions  in  mutilated  prose.  This  method  has 
been  further  developed  in  many  ways  since  that  time,  and  is  a 
common  feature  as  a  single  test  among  groups  of  tests  in  most 
modern  systems.  Sentence  completion,  picture  completion,  etc., 
are  variations  of  this  test. 

Intelligence  has  also  been  conceived  as  synonymous  with  a  com¬ 
mon  mental  factor  called  attention,  clear  awareness,  concentration, 
etc. ;  and  with  other  single  mental  factors ;  but  it  is  very  easy  to 
believe  that  Meumann,  Stern,  Ebbinghaus,  and  other  authorities 
of  major  importance  support,  in  effect,  the  view  of  Binet  which 
makes  judgment  the  essential  and  common  factor.  Where  other 
factors  are  named  it  seems  clear  that  their  advocates  have  defin¬ 
itely,  even  if  unconsciously,  identified  intelligence  with  judgment 
and  simply  have  made  a  further  identification  of  what  they  con¬ 
ceive  the  central  element  in  the  process. 

But  the  most  convincing  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  com¬ 
mon  factor  is  the  mathematical  proof  found  in  the  correlational 
studies  of  such  writers  as  Abelson,  Burt,  and  Hart  and  Spear¬ 
man.  As  to  the  essential  nature  of  this  generally  conceded  com¬ 
mon  factor  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  disagreement.  Abelson 
(1911)  leaned  toward  “clear  awareness”,  the  lack  of  which  in 
any  case  he  refers  to  cerebral  impairment.  Burt  supports  essen¬ 
tially  the  same  view  when  in  his  earlier  work  (1911)  he  combines 
Binet’s  tendency  to  emphasize  the  power  of  voluntary  attention, 
with  McDougall’s  view  of  the  physiological  factors  in  attention. 
But  Burt  also  emphasizes  judgment,  reasoning,  seeing  relations, 
as  the  most  fundamental  things  in  intelligence,  and  suggests  a  scale 
of  tests  featuring  all  processes  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest 
(regarding  reasoning  as  the  highest).  Thus  he  demands  both 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


IOI 


complexity  and  range,  with  reasoning  given  the  most  weight. 
The  difference  between  this  view  and  that  which  has  been  urged 
in  these  pages  lies  in  the  fact  that  Burt  appears  to  see  levels  of 
intelligence  delimited  by  quantity  of  judgment  ability,  while 
herein  the  levels  discriminated  depend  upon  quality  of  judgment 
ability. 

Spearman  and  Hart  (see  British  Journal  of  Psychology,  March 
1912)  discuss  three  views  of  the  common  factor:  (1)  non-focal, 
(2)  multi-focal,  and  (3)  uni-focal.  In  the  first,  abilities  are  re¬ 
garded  as  absolutely  specific,  and  therefore  non-correlating,  ex¬ 
cept  in  cases  where,  by  chance,  like  elements  happen  to  be  present 
in  the  different  performances.  In  the  second,  faculties,  types,  or 
levels  are  regarded  by  them  as  furnishing  foci  of  likenesses,  and 
therefore  of  groups  of  correlations,  such  as  might  be  expected 
from  Thorndike’s  theory  of  levels  of  sensitivity,  association,  and 
dissociation.  In  the  third  there  is  assumed  to  be  a  common 
factor  in  all  performances,  and  therefore  all  performances  may  be 
expected  to  correlate  to  the  extent  to  which  the  common  factor  is 
present. 

While  admitting  the  essential  truth  of  the  Spearman  and  Hart 
position,  there  are  several  observations  which  may  be  made.  ( 1 ) 
The  non-focal  theory  can,  as  they  say,  probably  safely  be  dis¬ 
carded.  Modern  psychological  investigation  by  Coover,  Angell, 
Rugg,  and  others  supports  this  conclusion.  (2)  The  opinion  of 
Spearman  and  Hart  that  the  multi-focal  theory  is  necessarily  an¬ 
tagonistic  to  the  uni-focal  theory  is  not  necessarily  true  if  one  ad¬ 
mits  the  view  that  the  common  factor,  judgment,  extends  through 
all  intelligence;  but  that  in  a  certain  part  of  the  field  the  quality 
of  judgment  is  mechanical  (thus  differentiating  mechanically  con¬ 
trolled  intelligence),  and  in  another  part  of  the  field,  purposive 
(thus  differentiating  intentionally  controlled  intelligence). 
Thorndike’s  sensitivity  and  association  levels  would  then  seem 
to  belong  to  the  field  of  mechanically  controlled  intelligence,  while 
his  dissociation  (free  idea)  level,  would  seem  to  belong  to  inten¬ 
tionally  controlled  intelligence.  Moreover  in  the  field  of  inten¬ 
tionally  controlled  intelligence,  the  common  factor,  judgment, 
may  again  be  conceived  as  determining  levels  according  to  the 


102 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


quality  of  the  mental  elements  (sensations,  percepts,  images,  sym¬ 
bols)  between  which  relationships  are  discerned.  (3)  The  theory 
thus  interpreted  does  not  involve  “faculty”  psychology  if  the  men¬ 
tal  elements  considered  are  thought  of  as  unit-activities  of  a  total 
mind.  (4)  The  whole  theory  supports  the  Binet  view.  It  is  true 
that  Binet  called  the  common  factor  judgment,  and  Spearman  and 
Hart  (and  others)  define  it  in  terms  of  cortex  energy,  etc.,  but 
this  may  be  viewed  as  only  a  case  of  psycho-physical  parallelism 
in  the  analysis  of  which  one  person  speaks  in  terms  of  the  mental 
correlate,  and  the  other  in  terms  of  the  physical  correlate.  When 
the  cortical  change  comes,  the  judgment  is  exercised.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  postulate  that  one  is  caused  by  the  other,  but  only 
that  one  accompanies  the  other. 

Hence,  there  is  a  very  generally  supported  view  of  the  existence 
of  a  common  factor,  which  factor  can,  roughly  at  least,  be  meas¬ 
ured  objectively  and  expressed  through  the  use  of  an  age  scale; 
and  the  Binet  scale  is  the  basis  and  universally  used  expression  of 
the  theory. 

II.  Possible  results  of  the  theory  upon  methods  of  mental 

measurement. 

It  should  now  be  clear  that  the  key  to  the  theory  proposed 
by  the  thesis  is  ( 1 )  such  a  definition  of  intelligence  as 
makes  non-predictable  variation  the  paramount  thing  in 
it;  (2)  the  acceptance  of  the  theory  of  a  common  factor  re¬ 
sponsible  for  non-predictable  variation,  and  quantitatively  measur¬ 
able  in  terms  of  an  age  scale ;  (3)  an  appeal  to  the  literature  and  to 
original  quantitative  experimentation  in  support  of  a  new  under¬ 
standing  of  intelligence  based  upon  an  analysis  of  qualitative  dif¬ 
ferences  in  the  common  factor.  Primarily  the  qualitative  differ¬ 
ences  appealed  to  are  referred  to  differences  in  power  to  handle 
the  concrete  and  the  abstract.  The  reader  should  hold  it  definitely 
in  mind  that  no  claim  of  originality  is  here  made  for  the  theory 
that  intelligence  is  conditioned  by  different  degrees  of  control  over 
the  concrete  and  the  abstract.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  intuitive 
psychology  of  the  layman  ferreted  out  that  fact  long  ago.  But  an 
attempt  has  here  been  made  to  show  the  connection  of  this  popular 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


103 


conception  with  that  of  psychological  levels  differentiated  by  vary¬ 
ing  abilities  to  manipulate  judgment  in  terms  of  the  mechanical 
and  the  intentional,  and  in  terms  of  different  unit-mental-activities 
within  the  intentional.  Assuming  that  a  certain  amount  of  proof 
has  been  offered  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  of  levels  conditioned 
by  these  qualitative  differences  in  the  common  factor,  and  that 
there  is  at  least  a  strong  probability  that  the  theory  is  true,  the 
following  practical  bearings  of  this  conclusion  upon  methods  of 
mental  measurement  are  suggested. 

I.  EMPHASIS  UPON  THE  VALUE  OF  THE  LANGUAGE  TEST. 

One  result  of  the  study  is  to  emphasize  the  value  of  the  lan¬ 
guage  test  as  an  intelligence  test.  By  language  test  is  not  meant 
the  mere  mechanical  flow  of  words;  but  instead  a  genuine  com¬ 
mand  of  language  as  the  tool  of  thought.  There  has  been  a  grow¬ 
ing  tendency  in  intelligence  measurement  to  try  to  get  away  from 
the  language  test.  This  tendency  has  been  one  reason  for  the  devel¬ 
opment  and  use  of  performance  scales  even  with  subjects  who 
labor  under  no  handicap  with  regard  to  language  ability.  How¬ 
ever,  the  desire  to  minimize  the  language  factor  has  had  its  origin 
largely  in  the  fact  that  owing  to  their  ability  to  put  many  words 
together,  the  feebleminded  have  often  been  found  to  give  an  im¬ 
pression  of  an  intelligence  which  they  do  not  really  possess.  Ideas 
expressed  in  language  have  two  phases  :  (a)  the  word,  or  symbol, 
and  (b)  the  meaning  of  the  word  or  symbol.  The  feebleminded 
often  have  the  first  of  these  without  the  second.  When  the  me¬ 
chanical  use  of  language  can  be  sufficiently  guarded  against,  lan¬ 
guage  ability  becomes  one  of  the  best  evidences  of  intelligence,  of 
ability  to  work  on  the  symbol  level  in  contrast  to  the  perceptual 
level. 

2.  TENDENCY  TO  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  MORE  DIAGNOSTIC  SCALES 
OF  INTELLIGENCE  BASED  UPON  THE  SEPARATE  SCALING  OF 
QUALITATIVE  DIFFERENCES  IN  THE  COMMON  FACTOR. 

It  seem  likely  that  as  a  supplement  to  the  single  scale  which 
now  features  mechanically  controlled  intelligence,  intentionally 
controlled  intelligence,  and  reproductive  (pedagogical)  intelli- 


104 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


gence,  together,  there  will  tend  to  appear  also  separate  scales  of 
these  three  types  of  intelligence  constructed  upon  the  same  prin¬ 
ciples.  In  fact  such  an  outcome  is  already  in  evidence.  Repro¬ 
ductive,  or  pedagogical  scales  have  become  common;  and  De 
Sanctis,  even  as  early  as  1911,  suggested  the  distinction  between 
“lower  ideation”  and  “higher  ideation”.  This  distinction  cor¬ 
responds  in  intent  at  least  roughly  to  the  mechanically  controlled 
intelligence  and  intentionally  controlled  intelligence  which  have 
been  discussed.  The  idea  has  also  of  late  appeared  in  concrete 
operation  in  the  work  of  Link  and  others  in  employment  psychol¬ 
ogy.  The  investigators  in  this  field  have  found  it  necessary  to 
develop  separate  scales  of  technique  and  of  intelligence ;  or,  in 
other  words,  separate  scales  of  mechanically  controlled  intelli¬ 
gence  and  of  intentionally  controlled  intelligence.  The  very  fact 
that  practical  application  of  tests  has  brought  out  the  demand  for 
three  types  of  scales  is  in  itself  a  degree  of  proof  of  the  theory  as 
outlined;  and  there  is  added  proof  in  the  tendency  of  modern 
students  of  intelligence  to  stress  the  intentional  and  immediate  so¬ 


lution  of  problems  as  the  central  thing  in  intelligence.  It  is  the 
central  thing  in  the  highest  type  of  intelligence,  the  type  dif¬ 
ferentiated  by  judgment  of  the  intentionally  controlled  quality. 

The  present  Binet  scale,  or  any  other  perfected  upon  the  same 
principles,  can  give  a  result  which  shows  only  a  total  mental  age. 
One  can  ascertain  that  a  subject  is  excellent  or  normal  or  feeble¬ 
minded  by  comparison  with  chronological  age,  but  neither  the 
Binet  mental  age  nor  the  intelligence  quotient  derived  from  it  shows 
specifically  wherein  the  excellence  or  the  defect  of  the  subject  con¬ 
sists.  The  situation  is  similar  to  that  which  has  developed  with 
pedagogical  scales.  Take  for  example  the  field  of  handwriting. 
Thorndike’s  scale  of  “general  merit”  in  handwriting  is  directly 
comparable  with  the  Binet  scale  of  general  ability  in  intelligence. 
The  scale  measures  a  total  ability,  but  does  not  attempt  to  be 
analytic  or  diagnostic  as  to  particular  faults.  Such  a  scale  has 
many  values  (and  always  will  have),  as  “general  merit”  hand¬ 
writing  scales  have  abundantly  proved ;  but  it  has  been  necessary 
for  diagnostic  purposes  to  develop  supplementary  scales  of  sep- 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


105 


arate  elements  of  handwriting  excellence  such  as  the  Ayres  di¬ 
vision  into  slants  and  the  more  extended  Freeman  division  into  a 
larger  number  of  parallel  scales  of  important  elements.  With  an 
opportunity  to  scale  a  pupil’s  handwriting  by  the  several  scales  of 
the  elements,  that  pupil’s  special  difficulty  can  be  located  and  the 
correct  assistance  given. 

It  seems  probable  therefore  that  there  should  be  developed  a 
scale  or  a  system  of  scales  which  would  measure  separately  not 
only  mechanical,  pedagogical,  and  purposive  intelligence,  but 
which  also  (in  purposive  intelligence  at  least)  would  measure 
separately  the  ability  to  judge  (a)  in  terms  of  perceptual  ma¬ 
terial,  and  (b)  in  terms  of  imaginal  material,  and  (c)  in  terms 
of  symbol  material.  Such  a  series  of  scales  would  be  much 
more  diagnostic  than  the  general  scales  now  in  existence, 
would  help  correctly  to  place  subjects  in  life,  and,  by  more 
nearly  locating  the  defect  would  lead  the  way  to’  a  more 
effective  study  of  possible  remedies  for  mental  defects.  This  is 
extremely  important,  for  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  present 
view  of  the  permanency  of  mental  defect  needs  at  least  partial 
revision.  At  least  they  need  very  extended  and  critical  testing, 
and  the  more  definite  analysis  which  would  be  possible  through  the 
qualitative  extension  of  the  scales  would  be  a  very  important  as¬ 
sistance  in  this  work. 

3.  INCREASED  TENDENCY  TO  SPECULATE  UPON  THE  PROBLEM  AS 
TO  WHETHER  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 
CEASES  SOON  AFTER  ADOLESCENCE. 

The  emphasis  upon  judgment  as  the  common  factor  in  intelli¬ 
gence,  and  upon  levels  of  intelligence  determined  by  qualitative 
differences  in  the  mental  elements  concerning  which  judgment  is 
rendered,  may  throw  light  upon  the  vexed  question  as  to  whether 
the  development  of  intelligence  ceases  at  about  the  chronological 
age  of  sixteen  or  eighteen  as  the  Binet  theory  tends  to  hold.  All 
experiments  with  Binet  material  and  procedure  have  tended  to  sus¬ 
tain  this  view.  They  have  not  brought  out  reliable  evidences  of 
increment  beyond  the  point  mentioned.  Hence  there  is  the  in¬ 
ference  that  mental  growth  reaches  approximately  its  maximum, 


io6 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


as  does  physical  growth,  a  few  years  after  adolescence.  Of  course 
there  may  be  after  this  time  an  increase  in  the  ability  to  get  the 
most  out  of  the  intelligence  which  one  has,  just  as  one  may  learn 
to  make  better  and  better  use  of  his  physique  even  after  physical 
growth  ceases ;  but  to  distinguish  between  increase  in  intelligence 
itself  and  increase  in  one’s  power  to  use  a  fixed  amount  of  intelli¬ 
gence  appears  to  some  persons  as,  in  a  sense,  a  begging  of  the 
question.  For,  off  hand,  one  tends  to  believe  that  if  a  college 
senior  can  solve  more  real  problems  than  he  could  when  he  was 
a  high  school  senior,  then  by  that  very  fact  he  is  to  be  judged 
actually  more  intelligent.  By  the  same  criterion  he  might  be 
found  more  intelligent  when  he  is  chronologically  forty  than  at 
the  time  of  his  graduation  from  college. 

Yet  the  point  in  question  is  exactly  the  one  just  raised.  Does  a 
person  show  more  success  in  problem-solving  at  forty  than  at 
sixteen  or  eighteen?  Possibly  the  answer  lies  in  asking  whether 
one  means  more  problem-solving  or  better  (or  different)  problem¬ 
solving.  Thus  perhaps  it  is  again  a  question  between  quantity  and 
quality.  In  this  thesis  the  view  has  been  supported  that  the  power 
to  deal  with  abstractions  must  show  development  around  about 
twelve  years  (chronologically)  or  else  the  subject  is  marked  as 
mentally  inferior.  That  is,  he  must  begin  to  exhibit  a  certain 
quality  of  judgment  at  about  that  time  or  he  is  defective.  By  the 
time  he  is  sixteen  or  eighteen  the  Binet  tests  seem  to  show  that  his 
power  of  abstraction  is  developed  about  as  far  as  it  ever  will  be, 
that  significant  increase  in  intelligence  beyond  this  age  does  not 
seem  to  occur.  Perhaps  this  appears  to  hold  (a)  because  the  pecu¬ 
liar  quality  of  abstract  judgment  (organizing  power)  required 
to  earn  the  new  increment  of  intelligence  is  not  tested  by  the 
Binet  tests;  and  (b)  because  the  peculiar  quality  of  abstract  judg¬ 
ment  in  question  is  so  rare  that  it  is  easily  missed  by  any  system 
of  tests.  There  is  a  type  of  abstract  synthesis  which  requires  not 
minutes  or  hours,  but  months,  years,  or  a  lifetime.  Many  of  the 
world’s  supreme  problems  have  been  solved  by  men  who  have 
shown  a  peculiar,  dogged  persistency  in  pursuing  an  idea  until  its 
relation  to  other  ideas  and  their  relation  to  it  became  apparent. 
Speed  is  not  an  element  in  such  a  feat.  The  essence  of  the 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


107 


achievement  is  judgment  of  a  peculiar  organizing  type,  which  sees 
through  insignificant  details  and  finally  seizes  upon  the  really  sig¬ 
nificant  factors.  It  may  be,  therefore,  that  after  types  of  intelli¬ 
gence  are  differentiated  on  the  qualitative  basis  of  perceptual, 
imaginal,  and  symbolic,  it  will  be  necessary  to  distinguish  a 
higher  qualitative  differentiation  within  the  symbolic  itself,  which 
the  limitation  of  brief  time  for  testing,  and  incomplete  insight  into 
values,  have  left  still  untapped  by  any  exact  quantitative  measure¬ 
ment.  Perhaps  it  is  too  elusive  to  be  tapped.  At  any  rate,  one 
may,  if  he  so  desires,  speculate  upon  its  existence,  and  he  is 
likely  to  do  so  if  he  is  not  fully  satisfied  with  the  other  view  that 
intelligence  ceases  to  develop  at  the  age  of  sixteen  or  eighteen 
years.  This  speculation  concerning  a  real  increase  in  intelligence 
itself,  an  increase  based  upon  qualitative  differences  in  the  power 
of  abstract  thought,  is  possibly  not  antagonistic  to  the  essential 
Binet  principles  but  merely  supplementary  to  them. 

III.  Summary. 

In  this  thesis  it  has  been  held : 

1.  That  the  problem  of  intelligence  is  within  the  problem  of 
adaptation. 

2.  That  not  all  adaptation,  but  only  non-predictable  adaptation 
is  intelligent. 

3.  That  in  all  non-predictable  adaptation  there  is  a  common 
factor,  judgment. 

4.  That  sometimes  the  quality  of  judgment  is  mechanical  and 
sometimes  intentional. 

5.  That  if  the  term  intelligence  is  used  at  all  with  reference 
to  mechanically  controlled  judgment,  the  qualified  expression 
mechanically  controlled  intelligence  should  be  used. 

6.  That  intentionally  controlled  judgment  should  be  called 
intentionally  controlled  intelligence. 

7.  That  intentionally  controlled  intelligence  itself  exists  in 
levels  determined  in  popular  language  by  different  degrees  of  con¬ 
creteness  and  abstractioness  involved  in  the  exercise  of  the  com¬ 
mon  factor. 

8.  That  the  terms  concrete  and  abstract  are  only  popular  ex¬ 
pressions  for  the  more  technical  psychological  terms  which  desig¬ 
nate  unit-mental-activities. 


io8 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


9.  That  there  could  be  discriminated  as  many  levels  in  inten¬ 
tionally  controlled  intelligence  as  there  are  distinct  unit-mental- 
activities  ;  but  that  it  is  expedient  to  discriminate  but  three  levels — 
the  perceptual  level,  the  image  level,  and  the  symbol  level. 

A  degree  of  proof  of  the  existence  of  the  levels  has  been  offered 
(a)  by  reference  to  existing  literature,  and  (b)  by  original  quanti¬ 
tative  research.  The  conclusion  is  drawn  that  more  diagnostic 
testing  of  intelligence  could  be  done  if  the  exising  age-scales  of 
general  intelligence  were  supplemented  by  scales  which  test  for 
ability  on  the  different  levels. 

The  main  contributions  are  (a)  greater  insight  into  the  defini¬ 
tion  and  nature  of  intelligence,  and  (b)  the  pointing  of  the  way 
toward  more  diagnostic  measurement  of  intelligence  through  the 
provision  for  measurement  based  upon  the  levels  determined  by 
qualitative  differences  in  the  common  factor,  judgment. 


TYPICAL  GENERAL  REFERENCES 


Abelson,  A.  R.,  Measurement  of  Mental  Ability  of  Backward 
Children,  Br.  Jr.  Psychol,  4,  1911. 

Adams,  G.  P.,  On  the  Negative  and  Positive  Phototropism  of  the 
Earthworm,  Am.  Jr.  Physiol.,  9,  26. 

Angell,  J.  R.,  Chapters  from  Modern  Psychology,  Longmans, 
1912. 

. ,  An  Introduction  to  Psychology,  Holt,  1918. 

Baldwin,  B.  T.,  Differentiation  Between  Psychological  Experi¬ 
ments  and  Mental  Test.,  Report  of  Am.  Psychol.  Asso., 
1916. 

Baldwin,  J.  Mark,  Mental  Development,  Macmillan,  1894. 

. ,  The  Development  of  Animal  Psychology,  Congres. 

int.  de  Zool,  1914. 

. ,  Social  and  Ethical  Interpretations,  Macmillan,  1897- 

1902. 

Balz,  A.  G.  A.,  Dualism  and  Early  Modern  Philosophy,  Jr. 
Philos.,  Psychol,  etc.,  1918,  15. 

Bell,  J.  C.,  Recent  Literature  on  the  Binet  Tests,  Jr.  Ed.  Psychol, 
3,  1912. 

Binet,  Alfred,  et  Simon,  Th.,  Sur  la  necessite  d’etablir  un 
diagnostique  scientifique  des  etats  inferieurs  de  lintelligence, 
L’Annee  psychologique,  1915,  163-190.  See  also  pages 
191-244,  and  245-336. 

. ,  Le  Developement  de  lintelligence  chez  les  enfants, 

L’Annee  psychologique,  1908,  1-94. 

. ,  Nouvelles  recherches  sur  la  mesure  du  niveau  in- 

tellectuel  chez  les  enfants  d’ecole,  L'Annee  psychologique, 
1911,  145-201. 

Binet,  Alfred,  Les  Signes  physiques  de  lintelligence  des  enfants, 
L’Annee  psychologique,  1910. 

. ,  Les  Frontieres  anthropometriques  des  anormaux,  Bu. 

Soc.  Et.  Ps.  Enf.,  1904. 

. .  Attention  et  adaptation,  L’Anne  psychologique,  1900; 

248-404. 

Boardman,  H.,  (Compiler),  Psychological  Tests,  a  Bibliography, 
N.  Y.,  Bureau  Ed.  Experiments,  1917. 


IIO 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Bobertag,  O.,  Ueber  Intelligenzpriif ungen,  Zeitschrift  fur  ange- 
wande  Psychologie,  1911,  5. 

Bohn,  G.,  Actions  tropiques  de  la  lumiere,  c.  r.  Soc.  Biol.,  Paris, 

t.  55- 

. .  Theorie  nouvelle  du  phototropisme,  c.  r.  Academy 

Science,  t.  139. 

Bonser,  F.  G.,  The  Reasoning  Ability  of  Children,  Columbia 
University,  Contributions,  No.  37. 

Book,  W.  F.,  Analysis  of  Some  of  the  Higher  Thought  Pro¬ 
cesses,  Psych.  Bub,  1912,  9. 

Brigham,  C.  C.,  Two  Studies  in  Mental  Tests,  Psychological 
Monographs,  1917,  24. 

. ,  An  Experimental  Critique  of  the  Binet-Simon  Scale, 

Jr.  Ed.  Psychol.,  5,  1914. 

Buckingham,  Correlation  Between  Ability  to  Think  and  to  Re¬ 
member,  Schl.  and  Soc.,  1917,  5. 

Burt,  C.,  Experimental  Tests  of  General  Intelligence,  Br.  Jr. 
Psychol.,  3,  1909. 

. . ,  Experimental  Tests  of  the  Higher  Mental  Processes, 

Jr.  Exper.  Ped.,  1911,  1. 

Cams,  P.,  In  Reply  to  Dualistic  Conceptions  of  Mind,  Monist, 
1918,  28. 

Cellerier,  L.,  L’Habitude  dans  l’education,  L'Educ.,  1916. 

Chase,  H.  W.,  Consciousness  and  the  Unconscious,  Psyc.  Bub, 
1916. 

Chotzen,  F.,  Die  Intelligenzprufungsmethode,  Zeitschrift  fiir 
angewande  Psychologie,  1912,  6. 

Clifford,  W.  K.,  Lectures  and  Essays,  London,  1886. 

Cohen,  M.  R.,  The  Distinction  Between  the  Mental  and  the 
Physical,  Jr.  Phil.,  Psychol.,  etc.,  1917,  14. 

Colvin,  S.  S.,  The  Attitude  of  the  Child  in  Learning,  N.  E.  A., 

I9I4* 

Coover,  J.  E.,  Formal  Discipline,  Psych.  M011.,  1912,  No.  87. 
For  other  material  on  the  same  topic  see  also  bibliographies 
in  this  book. 

Dashiell,  J.  F.,  Sixteen  Origins  of  the  Mind,  Am.  Jr.  Psychol., 
1918,  29. 

Dearborn,  W.  F.,  The  Measurement  of  Intelligence,  Psyc.  Bui., 

I9I7>  14; 

De  Busk,  Height,  Weight,  Vital  Capacity,  and  Retardation,  Ped. 
Sem.,  1913,  20. 

Decroly  and  Degand,  Archives  de  Psychologie,  Jan.,  1910. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


hi 


De  Sanctis,  S.,  Mental  Development  and  Measure  of  the  Level  of 
Intelligence,  Jr.  Ed.  Psychol.,  1911,  2. 

Descoeudres,  A.,  Equete  sur  l’evaluation  subjective  des  quelques 
tests  Binet  et  Simon,  Archives  de  psychologie,  1917,  16. 

Dewey,  John,  Duality  and  Dualism,  Jr.  Philos.  Psychol.,  etc., 

1917>  T4- 

. ,  Imitation,  Encyclopedia  of  Education  (Monroe), 

Macmillan,  1911. 

. .  The  Reflex  Arc  Concept  in  Psychology,  Psyc.  Rev., 

1893-  3- 

. ,  How  We  Think,  Heath,  1910. 

Doll,  E.  A.,  A  Brief  Binet  Scale,  Psyc.  Clinic,  1917,  11. 

. ,  Anthropometry  as  an  Aid  to  Mental  Diagnosis,  Vine- 

land,  N.  J.,  1916. 

. ,  The  Interpretation  of  Anthropometric  Measurements, 

Jr.  Psycho-Aesthenics,  1915,  20. 

Downey,  J.  E.,  Standardized  Tests  and  Mental  Inheritance,  Jr. 
Hered.,  1918,  9. 

Dunlap,  K.,  An  Outline  of  Psychobiology,  Johns  Hopkins 
Press,  1917. 

Ebbinghaus,  Ueber  eine  neue  Methode  zur  Priifung  geistigen 
fahigkeiten,  etc.,  Zeitschrift  fur  Psychologie,  1897,  13. 

Esquirol,  Des  Malades  mentales,  II,  p.  340. 

Fabre,  F.  H.,  The  Wonders  of  Instinct,  London,  1918. 

Fernald,  Guy  C.,  An  Achievement  Capacity  Test,  Jr.  Ed.  Psyc., 
1912,  June. 

Franz,  S.  I.,  Handbook  of  Mental  Examination  Methods,  Jr. 
Neur.  and  Mental  Diseases  Pub.  Co.,  1912. 

Fisher,  S.  C.,  The  Process  of  Generalizing  Abstraction  and  Its 
Product  the  General  Concept,  Psyc.  Mon.,  1916,  21. 

Galton,  Head  Growth  in  Students  at  the  University  of  Cam¬ 
bridge,  Nature,  1888,  38;  1889,  40. 

. ,  Cambridge  Anthropometry,  Nature,  1890,  41. 

Gilbert,  Researches  on  Mental  and  Physical  Development  of 
School  Children,  Yale  Psychological  Studies,  1894,  2. 

. ,  Researches  upon  Children  and  College  Students,  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Iowa,  1897,  1. 

Goddard,  H.  H.,  Psychology  of  the  Normal  and  Subnormal, 
Dodd,  Mead  and  Co.,  1919. 

. .  The  Binet  and  Simon  Tests,  1905  Series,  Vineland, 

1908. 

. .  Measuring  Scale  of  Intelligence,  Vineland,  Jan., 

1910. 


1 12 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Goddard,  H.  H.,  Four  Hundred  Feeble-minded  Children  Classi¬ 
fied  by  the  Binet  Method,  Ped.  Sem.,  1910,  17. 

. ,  The  Revision  of  the  Binet-Simon  Scale,  Vineland, 

191 1. 

. ,  The  Form  Board  as  a  Measure  of  Intellectual  Devel¬ 
opment  in  Children,  Training  School  Bulletin,  1912,  9. 

. ,  Standard  Methods  of  Scoring  Binet  Tests,  Vineland, 

April,  1913. 

. ,  The  Reliability  of  the  Binet-Simon  Measuring  Scale 

of  Intelligence,  Proc.  Fourth  International  Congress  of 
School  Hygiene,  1913,  5. 

.........  Two  Thousand  Normal  Children  Measured  by  the 

Binet  Measuring  Scale  of  Intelligence,  Ped.  Sem.,  1911,  18. 

Gray,  W.  S.,  Descriptive  List  of  Standard  Tests,  Elementary 
School  Journal,  1916,  Sept. 

Groos,  The  Play  of  Animals,  Chapman  and  Hall,  1898. 

Groszmann,  M.  P.  E.,  The  Individual  Child,  Scribners,  1917. 

Hall,  G.  Stanley,  The  Founders  of  American  Psychology,  Apple- 
ton,  1912. 

. ,  Adolescence,  Appleton,  1904. 

Hachet,  Souplet  P.,  La  Genese  des  instincts,  Paris,  1912. 

Hart  and  Spearman,  General  Ability;  its  Existence  and  Nature, 
Br.  Jr.  Psychol.,  1912,  5. 

Healy,  William  A.,  Pictorial  Completion  Test,  Psychol.  Rev., 
1914,  21. 

. .  The  Individual  Delinquent,  N.  Y.,  Little  Brown, 

I9I5- 

Healy  and  Fernald,  Tests  for  Practical  Mental  Classification, 
Psyc.  Mon.,  1911,  54. 

Herrick,  C.  Judson,  An  Introduction  to  Neurology,  Saunders, 
1915- 

Holmes  (etc.),  Descriptive  Bibliography  of  Measurement  in  Ele¬ 
mentary  Subjects,  Harvard  Bulletin,  1917. 

Honingswald,  R.,  Principien  der  Denkpsychologie,  Kant.  Stud., 
1913-8. 

Hough,  The  Classification  of  Nervous  Reactions,  Science,  N.  S., 
XLI. 

Huey,  E.  B.,  The  Psychology  and  Pedagogy  of  Reading,  N.  Y., 
1908. 

. ,  Backward  and  Feebleminded  Children,  Baltimore, 

Warwick  and  York,  1912. 

James,  William,  Psychology,  Holt,  1890. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT  113 

Jennings,  H.  S.,  The  Behavior  of  the  Lower  Organisms,  N.  Y., 
1906. 

Johnson,  W.  E.,  Analysis  of  Thinking,  Mind,  1918,  27. 

Klemm,  Otto,  A  History  of  Psychology,  Scribner,  1914. 

Kohs,  S.  C.,  The  Stanford  (1915)  and  the  Vineland  (1911)  Re¬ 
visions  of  the  Binet  Scale,  Psyc.  Rev.,  1917,  24. 

. ,  The  Binet-Simon  Measuring  Scale  for  Intelligence, 

an  Annotated  Bibliography,  Jr.  Ed.  Psychol.,  1914,  5. 

Knox,  H.  A.,  A  Scale  Based  Upon  the  Work  at  Ellis  Island,  Jr. 
Am.  Med.  Asso.,  March,  1914. 

Kuhlman,  F.,  A  reply  to  Dr.  L.  P.  Ayres,  etc.,  Jr.  Psycho- 
Aesthenics,  1911,  16. 

. ,  Binet  and  Simon  Method  for  Measuring  Intelligence 

of  Children,  Jr.  Psycho-Aesthenics,  1911,  15. 

. ,  Some  Results  of  Examining  1000  Public  School  Chil¬ 
dren  with  a  Revision  of  Binet-Simon  Tests  of  Intelligence 
by  Untrained  Teachers,  Jr.  Psycho-Aesthenics,  1914,  18. 

. ,  The  Binet  and  Simon  Tests  of  Intelligence  in  Grad¬ 
ing  Feebleminded  Children,  Jr.  Psycho-Aesthenics,  1912,  16. 

. ,  A  Revision  of  the  Binet-Simon  Scale  for  Measuring 

Intelligence  of  Children,  Mon.  Sup.  Jr.  Psycho-Aesthenics, 
Sept.  1912. 

. ,  A  Further  Extension  and  Revision  of  the  Binet- 

Simon  Scale,  Jr.  Criminal  Law,  1918,  8. 

. ,  What  Constitutes  Feeblemindedness,  Jr.  Psycho- 

Aesthenics,  1915,  19. 

Kulpe,  Outlines  of  Psychology. 

Ladd,  Psychology,  Descriptive  and  Explanatory,  Scribners,  1909. 

Ladd  and  Woodworth,  Elements  of  Physiological  Psychology, 
Scribners,  1911. 

Lange,  K.,  Ueber  Apperzeption,  Leipzig,  1912. 

Lashley,  K.  S.,  Recent  Literature  on  Animal  Behavior,  Psyc. 
Bui.,  1914,  11. 

Lindley,  A  Study  of  Puzzles,  Am.  Jr.  Psychol.,  8. 

Lillie,  R.  S.,  What  is  Purposive  and  Intelligent  Behavior,  Jr. 
Phil.  Psychol.,  etc.,  1915,  12. 

Lloyd,  A.  H.,  Psychophysical  Parallelism,  Jr.  Phil.  Psychol.,  etc., 
1917,14. 

Loeb,  J.,  Comparative  Physiology  of  the  Brain  and  Comparative 
Psychology,  N.  Y.,  1900. 

. .  Concerning  the  Theory  of  Tropisms,  Jr.  Exper. 

Zook,  151,  4. 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


114 

Loeb,  J.,  The  Mechanistic  Conception  of  Life,  Chicago,  1912. 

. ,  The  Organism  as  a  Whole  from  a  Psychochemical 

Viewpoint,  Putnam,  1916. 

McKenzie,  J.  S.,  Laws  of  Thought,  Mind,  n.  s.  1916,  25. 
McMurry,  F.  M.,  How  to  Study,  Houghton  Mifflin,  1909. 
Marbe,  K.,  Zur  Psychologie  des  Denkens,  Fortsc.  d.  Psychologie, 
1914,  3- 

Marratt,  R.  T.,  Anthropology  and  University  Education,  Rep. 
Brit.  Asso.  Adv.  Sc.,  1916. 

Marshall,  H.  R.,  The  Relation  of  Instinct  and  Intelligence,  Br. 
Jr.  Psychol.,  1912,  5. 

Mead,  The  Relations  of  General  Intelligence  to  Certain  Mental 
and  Physical  Traits,  N.  Y.,  Teachers  College,  1916. 
Meumann,  Vorlesungen,  Leipsig,  1907. 

Morgan,  Animal  Behavior,  Longmans,  1900. 

National  Society  for  Scientfic  Study  of  Education,  Material  on 
Standard  Tests:  15th  and  17th  Year  Books. 

Netschajeff,  A  New  Method  for  the  Investigation  of  Intelligence, 
Jr.  Exper.  Ped.,  1917,  4. 

Norsworthy,  Naomi,  The  Psychology  of  Mentally  Deficient 
Children,  N.  Y.,  Teachers  College,  1906. 

Otis,  A.  S.,  Some  Logical  Aspects  of  the  Binet  Scale,  Psyc.  Rev., 
1916,  23. 

. ,  A  Criticism  of  the  Yerkes-Bridges  Point  Scale,  Jr. 

Ed.  Psychol.,  1917,  8. 

. ,  An  Absolute  Point  Scale  for  the  Measurement  of 

Intelligence  in  Groups,  Jr.  Ed.  Psychol.,  1918,  9. 

Parker,  G.  H.,  Locomotion  of  Sea  Anemones,  Proc.  Nat.  Acad. 
Sci.,  1916,  2. 

Paulsen,  Introduction  to  Philosophy,  Holt,  1904. 

Pearse  and  White,  Recent  Literature  on  Tropisms  and  Instinc¬ 
tive  Activities,  Psyc.  Bui.,  1915,  12. 

Pearson,  Karl,  Grammar  of  Science,  London,  1900. 

Peterson,  H.  A.,  The  Generalizing  Ability  of  Children,  Jr.  Ed. 

Psychol.,  1914,  5. 

Pillsbury,  Attention,  1908. 

Pintner,  R.,  The  Standardization  of  the  Knox  Cube  Test,  Psy. 
Rev.,  XXII,  1915,  5. 

Pintner  and  Patterson,  A  Scale  of  Performance  Tests,  Appleton, 
1917- 

Plate,  L.,  Beobachtungen  an  den  denkenden  Pferden  des  Herrn 
Krall,  Naturwiss  Woch.,  1913,  28. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT  115 

Porter,  The  Growth  of  St.  Louis  Children,  Trans.  Acad.  Sci., 
1894,  6. 

Porteus,  D.  D.,  Mental  Tests  for  Feebleminded:  a  New  Series, 
Jr.  Psycho-Aesthenics,  1915,  19. 

. ,  The  Measurement  of  Intelligence:  653  children  ex¬ 
amined  by  the  Binet  and  Porteus  Tests,  Jr.  Ed.  Psychol., 
1918,  9. 

Pressey,  S.  L.,  and  L.  W.,  A  Group  Scale  for  Measuring  Gen¬ 
eral  Intelligence,  Jr.  Applied  Psychology,  1918,  2. 

Pyle,  W.  H.,  A  Manual  for  the  Mental  and  Physical  Examina¬ 
tion  of  School  Children  Univ.  Mo.,  1916,  17. 

Quetelet,  Anthropometrie,  Brussels,  1871. 

Rabinovitsch,  S.,  Resulte  der  experimentellen  Untersuchung  von 
Kindern  nach  der  kurtzen  Methode  von  Rossilimo,  Zsch.  f. 
angewande  Psychologie,  1918,  13. 

Radi,  E.,  Untersuchungen  fiber  die  Phototropismus  der  Tiere, 
Leipsig. 

Romanes,  G.  J.,  Mind  and  Motion,  Longmans,  1895. 

Rosanoff,  Martin,  and  Rosanoff,  A  Higher  Scale  of  Mental 
Measurement,  Psyc.  Mon.,  1918,  25. 

Rosenow,  C.,  The  Analysis  of  Mental  Functions,  Psyc.  Mon., 
1917,  24. 

Rossilimo,  G.,  Mental  Profiles,  Jr.  Exper.  Ped.,  1912. 

Ruediger,  W.  C.,  Thought  and  the  Higher  Mental  Processes, 
Psyc.  Bui.,  1918,  15. 

Ruger,  A.  J.,  The  Psychology  of  Efficiency,  Archives  of  Psychol., 
1910,  15. 

Rugg,  H.  O.,  Experimental  Determination  of  Mental  Discipline, 
Warwick  and  York,  1916;  contains  Bibliographies  on  the 
Subject. 

Sackett,  L.  W.,  The  Canada  Porcupine,  a  Study  of  the  Learning 
Process,  Animal  Behavior  Monographs,  1913,  2,  No.  2. 

Sellers,  R.  W.,  An  Approach  to  the  Mind-Body  Problem,  Philo¬ 
sophic  Review,  1918,  27. 

Shepherd,  J.  F.,  Habit  Formation  and  Higher  Mental  Capacities 
in  Animals,  Psyc.  Bui.,  1917,  14. 

Sherrington,  The  Integrative  Action  of  the  Nervous  System, 
N.  Y.,  1906. 

Simon,  Recherches  cephalometriques  sur  les  enfants  arrieres  de 
la  Colonie  de  Vaucluse,  L’Annee  psychologique,  1900,  7. 

Simpson,  B.  R.,  Correlations  of  Mental  Abilities,  N.  Y.,  Teachers 
College,  1912. 


n6 


JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 


Smedley,  Annual  Report  to  Board  of  Ed.,  Chicago,  1900-01; 

Also  Com.  Ed.  Report,  1902,  Vol.  I. 

Smith,  E.  M.,  The  Investigation  of  the  Minds  of  Animals,  Cam¬ 
bridge  University  Press,  1915. 

Sollier,  Paul,  Psychologie  de  l'idiot  et  de  l'imbecile,  Paris,  1901. 
Spearman,  C.,  General  Intelligence  Objectively  Determined  and 
Measured,  Am.  Jr.  Psychol.,  1904,  15. 

Stern,  William,  The  Psychological  Methods  of  Testing  Intelli¬ 
gence,  (Tr.  Whipple)  Warwick  and ’York,  1913. 

Stratton,  G.  M.,  Experimental  Psychology  and  Its  Bearing  Upon 
Culture,  Macmillan,  1903. 

Terman,  L.  M.,  Review  of  Meumann  on  Tests  of  Endowment,  Jr. 
Psycho-Aesthenics,  1913,  5. 

. ,  Suggestions  for  Revising,  Extending,  and  Suplement- 

ing  the  Binet  Intelligence  Tests,  Jr.  Psycho-Aesthenics,  1913, 
18. 

. ,  Psychological  Principles  Underlying  the  Binet-Simon 

Tests,  and  Some  Practical  Considerations  for  its  Correct 
Use,  Jr.  Psycho-Aesthenics,  1913,  18. 

. ,  Genius  and  Stupidity,  Ped.  Sem.,  1906,  13. 

. ,  The  Measurement  of  Intelligence,  Houghton  Mifflin, 

1916. 

.........  The  Vocabulary  Test  as  a  Measure  of  Intelligence, 

Jr.  Ed.  Psychol.,  1918,  9. 

. ,  The  Intelligence  of  Children,  Houghton  Mifflin,  1919. 

Terman  and  Chamberlain,  Twenty-three  Serial  Tests  of  Intelli¬ 
gence,  etc.,  Jr.  Applied  Pspchol.,  1918,  2. 

Terman  and  Others.  Stanford  Revision  Monograph,  Warwick 
and  York,  1916. 

Thorndike,  E.  L.,  Educational  Psychology,  Columbia  University 
Press,  1913. 

. ,  Animal  Behavior,  Macmillan,  1911. 

Thompson,  E.  L.,  An  Analysis  of  the  Learning  Process  in  the 
Snail,  Behavior  Monographs,  1917,  3. 

Titchener,  E.  B.,  The  Psychology  of  Feeling  and  Attention,  Mac¬ 
millan,  1908. 

. ,  Description  vs.  Statement  of  Meaning,  Am.  Jr. 

Psychol.,  1912,  23. 

. ,  Experimental  Psychology,  N.  Y.,  1901. 

Torrey,  H.  B.,  Tropisms  and  Instinctive  Activities,  Psyc.  Bui., 

1917,  14. 

Trabue,  M.  R.,  Completion  Test  Language  Scale,  N.  Y.,  Teach¬ 
ers  College,  1916,  77. 


MODERN  METHODS  OF  MENTAL  MEASUREMENT 


ii  7 


Trebitsch,  A.,  Die  Sinn  und  das  Denkin,  Arch.  f.  syst.  Phil., 

1913,  19. 

Tredgold,  Mental  Deficiency,  London,  1914. 

Trobridge,  C.  C.,  The  Origin  of  the  Flocking  Habits  of  Migra¬ 
tory  Birds,  Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  1914,  84. 

Turner,  C.  H.,  The  Locomotions  of  Surface-breeding  caterpillars 
are  not  Tropisms,  Biol.  Bui.,  1918,  34. 

Tyndall,  Fragments  of  Science,  N.  Y.,  1874. 

U.  S.  Surgeon  General,  Examiner's  Guide  for  Psychological  Ex¬ 
amining  in  the  Army,  Washington,  1918. 

Vervorn,  M.,  General  Physiology,  London,  1899. 

Veschide  et  Pelletier,  Recherches  sur  les  signes  physiques  de 
l’intelligence,  Revue  philosophique,  1903,  4. 

Vincent,  S.  B.,  Literature  for  1915  on  the  Behavior  of  Verte¬ 
brates,  Jr.  Animal  Behavior,  1916,  6. 

Warren,  H.  C.,  The  Mechanics  of  Intelligence,  Philos.  Rev.,  1917, 
26. 

Washburn,  M.  F.,  Tropisms  and  Instinctive  Activities,  Psyc.  Bui., 

1918,  15. 

. ,  The  Animal  Mind,  Macmillan,  1908. 

Watson,  J.  B.,  Homing  and  Related  Activities  of  Birds,  Carnegie 
Institution,  1915. 

. ,  Behavior,  an  Introduction  to  Comparative  Psychol¬ 
ogy,  Holt,  1914. 

. .  Psychology  from  the  Standpoint  of  a  Behaviorist, 

Lippincott,  1919. 

. ,  An  Attempted  Formulation  of  the  Scope  of  Behavior¬ 
istic  Psychology,  Psyc.  Rev.,  1917,  24. 

Weeks,  A.  D.,  The  Crisis  Factor  in  Thinking,  Am.  Jr.  Soc., 

1914,  19. 

Weiss,  A.  P.,  Relation  Between  Functional  and  Behavior  Psychol¬ 
ogy,  Psyc.  Rev.,  1917,  24. 

. .  Relation  Between  Structural  and  Behavior  Psychol¬ 
ogy,  Psyc.  Rev.,  1917,  24. 

Wigge,  C.,  Das  Problem  der  krallschen  Pferde,  Dusseldorf, 

Winch,  Binet’s  Mental  Tests,  Childstudy,  London,  1913,  16. 
Wissler,  C.,  Correlation  of  Mental  and  Physical  Tests,  Psyc. 
Mon.  1901,  3. 

Woodworth,  Dynamic  Psychology,  Columbia  LTniv.  Press,  1916. 
Woodworth  and  Wells,  Association  Tests,  Psyc.  Mon.,  1911,  5. 


n8  JAMES  LEROY  STOCKTON 

Wooley,  Helen  T.,  A  New  Scale  of  Mental  and  Physical  Measure¬ 
ments  for  Adolescents,  Jr.  Ed.  Psychol.,  1915,  6. 

Wundt,  Grundriss  der  Psychologie,  1905. 

.........  Menschen  und  Thierseele. 

. ,  Grundziige  der  physiologische  Psychologie,  1887. 

. ,  Volkerpsychologie,  1900. 

Wyatt,  S.,  Quantitative  Investigation  of  Higher  Mental  Pro¬ 
cesses,  Br.  Jr.  Psychol.,  1913,  6. 

Yerkes,  R.,  Behaviorism  and  Genetic  Psychology,  Jr.  Philos. 
Psychol.,  etc.,  1917,  14. 

. ,  Objective  Nomenclature,  Comparative  Psychology, 

and  Animal  Behavior,  Jr.  Comp.  Neurology,  16,  380. 

. ,  The  Dancing  Mouse,  Macmillan,  1907. 

Yerkes,  Bridges,  and  Hardwick,  A  Point  Scale  for  Measuring 
Intelligence,  Warwick  and  York,  1914. 

Yerkes  and  Yerkes,  Individuality,  Temperament,  and  Genius  in 
Animals,  Am.  Mus.  Jr.,  1917,  1 7. 

Ziehen,  Die  Principien  und  Methoden  der  Intelligenzprufung, 
Berlin,  1919. 


